iktok

Good morning and welcome to the Sacramento City Council Law and Legislation Committee

meeting. I call this meeting to order at 11.03 a.m. Madam Clerk will you please call the roll. Thank you

Council Member Dickinson. Council Member Pluckybaum is expected momentarily. Council Member Jennings.

Here. And Chair Vang or Chair Maple. I am present. Council Member Dickinson would you please lead us

in the land acknowledgement and pledge of allegiance. Should be underneath it.

There we go. Council Member Jennings will lead us.

Since everyone has arisen, please join us for the opening acknowledgments in honor of Sacramento's

indigenous people and tribal lands to the original people of this land, the Nisian people, the

Southern Maidu, Valley and Plains Miwok, and Patman-Wenton peoples and the people of the

Wilton Rancheria, Sacramento's only federally recognized tribe. May we acknowledge and honor

the native people who came before us and still walk beside us today on these ancestral lands

by choosing to gather together today in the active practices of acknowledgement and appreciation

for Sacramento's indigenous people's history, their contributions, 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,

with liberty and justice for all. Thank you Council Member Jennings. So members of the public who

wish to address the committee may do so by picking up a speaker slip that's in the back of the room

and then you can bring it up to the front desk here with our wonderful staff. Please turn in those

slips prior to the item otherwise we will not be able to hear you. You'll have two minutes to address

the committee. So everyone has the ability to address the committee. We ask that you abide by the

rules of decorum which can be found in our Council Rules of Procedure on our website or in copies of

the in the back of the room as well as summarized on the back of the speaker slip. This meeting is being

streamed and can be viewed live at the city's website. Okay so now we move on to the consent

calendar. Any members have any comments, questions, want to pull items? Seeing none do we have any

members or do? Okay we have a motion. Do we have any members of the public wishing to speak on consent?

I have no speakers on the consent calendar. Do I have a second? You do have a second. I have a motion

and a second. All those in favor please say aye. Aye. Any opposed or abstain? That passes unanimously. Now we'll move on to our first discussion item. Item 5,

regulation changes short-term rentals. Welcome.

Good morning Chair, Council members, members of the public. I'm Pete Coletto the Finance Director and up here with me is Jackie Rice our revenue division manager.

And before Jackie goes into some of the detail I just wanted to give a little context of why we're bringing this forward to the committee.

There were really two issues that we that were brought to our attention around our short-term rental program.

The first is that we are regulating currently regulating just because of how our short-term rental code is tied to our building code.

We're regulating very similar situations in a very different ways. And so for example if I have a attached garage that I convert to a short-term rental I can get a primary permit.

If Jackie has a detached garage she's only eligible for a secondary permit with a cap on the number of days.

And from our regulatory standpoint or regulatory perspective it doesn't really make sense to regulate those two situations differently.

At the same time we've gotten a rising number and a disproportionate share of complaints associated with secondary rental units.

And these are units where primarily the person's not living on the property. It's an investor and they're renting it out.

And we've heard a number of complaints from the neighborhood.

And so we want to bring a proposal to you today for discussion and comment to try to address both of those issues.

And with that I'll hand it off to Jackie.

Thank you.

Jackie Rice.

Okay.

Good morning committee members.

I'm Jackie Rice, Revenue Division Manager.

I'm here today to give you a brief background on the city's short-term rental program to provide you with some trends and feedback we've received both from the community and from our short-term rental operators.

And finally to share some recommendations that we have to hopefully resolve some of those complaints.

The city's short-term rental program was established in 2016 to eliminate the need for a conditional use permit to operate a short-term rental.

Short-term rentals are defined as stays of 30 consecutive days or less.

Our current ordinance allows for the rental of either a primary or a non-primary residence.

Permittees that rent out space in their primary residence have no limit on the number of days they can rent out that space.

Whereas permittees that rent out a residence that is not their primary residence have a limit of 90 aggregate rental days over the life of that permit.

In order for a property to be considered your primary residence the applicant must reside at their 184 days of the year.

Currently the city manages 558 active short-term rental permits and most of these about 60% are renting out a non-primary residence.

So this chart before you it details the breakdown by year of the total issued permits by primary and non-primary residences.

As you can see the percentage of non-primary residents short-term rentals has gradually grown since 2018.

And these are as Pete mentioned these are typically properties that are purchased by investors and used as short-term rental businesses.

So you have two charts before you.

The chart on the left breaks down the types of complaints that are received by 311.

47% of these complaints relate to short-term rental operating short-term rentals operating without the required permit.

This is typically neighbors that are observing or suspect that a short-term rental is operating and they can't find a valid permit listed on our short-term rental portal.

This is followed by 31% of complaints related to the residency status of a property.

So this is typically someone that's the permittee has said it's their primary residence but their neighbors are suspecting that it's not.

They don't live there and or they are renting out above the 90-day limit that is given to them.

And then finally 22% of the complaints are related to what we refer to as our party houses.

So this is noise, cleanliness, unwanted parking and traffic in the neighborhood.

Oh, sorry, excuse me.

The chart on the right further breaks down.

Oops, sorry.

I need to go back.

Oh, okay.

The chart on the right further breaks down the complaints and shows that of the properties that had a valid permit,

70% of those complaints were registered against properties that were non-primary residences.

Okay.

And so as Pete mentioned at the beginning, another common complaint that we receive from our short-term rental operators relates to accessory dwelling units or ADUs.

Because the city issues permits by dwelling unit and because an ADU is its own dwelling unit,

typically our applicants are not living inside that dwelling unit.

And so because of this, they are limited to that 90 aggregate days over the permit term.

And so we do receive complaints from applicants seeking to recover the cost of constructing an ADU with short-term rental income,

only to find that they're limited in that opportunity.

And this also can lead to similar situations being treated differently.

Someone that's applying to rent out their permitted conversion of a garage that's attached to their house,

it's not considered its own dwelling unit.

And so therefore, it can be rented out as a primary residence and not limited in the number of days.

Whereas someone that maybe has a detached garage and is considered an accessory dwelling unit would be limited to the 90 days because it's its own dwelling unit.

And so what we're seeking to do here in response to these complaints,

we hope to update the short-term rental ordinance with three main goals in mind.

We'd like to clarify the code to allow for consistent regulation where similar situations are treated in a similar manner.

We also would like to address concerns that we receive from the community and from short-term rental operators

and align the short-term rental program with broader city housing policy and goals.

And so in pursuit of those goals, we have the following recommendation for the short-term rental program.

We'd like to simplify the program by doing the following.

The property that is the property in question must be the owner's primary residence only.

The permit can only be issued to the owner of the property.

And any dwelling unit, as long as it's on the property, can be used as a short-term rental.

But there will be a cap of one permit per property.

So you can use it for any dwelling unit, but you can only use one dwelling unit.

Many of these changes that we're recommending would also require changes to Title 17.

And so we have been working closely and will continue to work closely with CDD to ensure that any of these changes happen simultaneously.

We believe that these updates will clarify the regulations, make them more consistent, reduce complaints from the community, prevent circumvention of the intent of the STR policy.

And what we mean by that is that we do receive applications for people that have signed a long-term lease on a property.

And so that satisfies the primary residence requirement.

But we do have reason to believe that they're not actually living there.

They're using it as a full-time short-term rental business.

And so only issuing permits to the owner of the property would prevent that.

And we also believe that it will provide consistent regulation of attached and detached ADUs.

And so today we're just looking for feedback from the committee.

And depending on that feedback and direction, we'll work to draft any ordinance changes to both Title V and Title 17.

All right.

That concludes my presentation.

Thank you very much.

Can I have a couple quick questions, then I'll pass it over to committee members to see if they have questions, and then we'll take public comment at that time.

One question I have is around condos.

So, for example, so right now under the current ordinance, if you have a condo, let's say, in downtown that's in a high-rise building, let's say there's, you know, a couple hundred in there or something or a hundred condos, you can rent out as a short-term rental under the current ordinance.

Yes.

Is that right?

Okay.

And then under this proposed change, you would not be able to?

As long as you're renting out a room and not the entire condo, you can still.

Okay.

Just a room.

That's really interesting to me because, you know, I, as someone who loves to travel, I have often, like, stated at an Airbnb that someone's condo, that maybe they live, you know, somewhere, like, near an ocean or something like that.

Obviously, Sacramento's not, you know.

One day will be the great place that people want to travel all over the world for.

But so I just wonder about that.

So if you're, like, a condo owner under this change, you wouldn't be able to rent that out if, let's say, you're out of town or something.

So I think that you would be able to.

The distinction is it's your primary residence, right?

So you wouldn't be able to buy a condo and then use that as a short-term rental if that wasn't where you were primarily living.

But if I, for example, owned a condo in Midtown and, in your scenario, I was gone for a week, you would be able to get your primary – you would be able to get your STR permit because you do have that proof of ownership and residency.

And then you would be able to rent that out.

And alternatively, you could rent out a room if you were staying there, for example, right?

Okay, great.

That's helpful.

Thank you.

And then the other question I have, and I'll move on, is so, you know, let's say right now you have someone who lives in, let's say, East Sac.

They have an ADU on their property, and they already have bookings out for several months.

If we pass this ordinance, let's say, you know, next week or something, does it take effect immediately?

Are we able to accommodate people who might already have bookings in place?

So what we've discussed is kind of allowing people, if they have their permit, their permits last for a year.

And so we would – if you pass this ordinance, people who have their current permit would be able to keep them until the permit expires.

Because of that issue that you raised where you may have already, you know, booked it out under the current rules, which we have, and it's not fair to kind of change that on people suddenly.

So it would be during your renewal period.

If you didn't live there, you wouldn't be able to renew.

But for a lot of people, if they built their ADU right now, they would be capped, right?

So they would only have – they would only be able to get their secondary permit if it was a detached structure under this plan – under this kind of regulatory proposal.

They would be able to get a primary permit for their ADU.

Okay.

That's also very helpful.

Thank you.

And so now I will pass it over to Council Member Dickinson.

Thank you.

Thanks for the presentation.

I do have a few questions.

And looking back at your chart about primary residences and non-primary residences,

I just – I was curious whether you know of the 327 for 2025 that are active, how many of those are ADUs?

So we have – currently we have 59 ADUs of the total 558.

Of the 327, 53 –

59 are ADUs.

So obviously most of the non-primary permits are not going to folks for ADUs at this point.

Correct.

But it's something you're seeing increasing it sounds like.

Well, we – I don't know that we see an increase in ADUs, but we do receive a lot of complaints from people that have them that they can only use them for 90 days.

And they – you know, they built this ADU hoping to recover the cost of constructing it with that income, and they're not able to.

Okay.

Okay.

So hold that thought.

I want to come back to that.

But in the meantime, then on your complaints by type, I was just curious, for those that the complaint is operating without a permit,

is that something that you get a complaint about, oh, there's traffic or something, then you figure, wait a minute, they don't even have a permit?

Or are people aware when they complain, hey, they're renting this out and they don't have a permit?

Yeah, so we have an online portal that lists all our active short-term rental permits.

And so typically these complaints are people that they see what they suspect is a short-term rental.

And then they go to the portal and they're not finding that address on that portal.

Sometimes they're right.

Sometimes they're not.

Sometimes they're just, you know, trying to complain about the activity in their neighborhood.

But that's what those complaints are, is that they're not finding a valid permit when they go look.

So their complaint is, I think they're renting this out on a short-term basis and they don't have a permit because they've done a little research.

Right.

Okay.

And then you either verify that they're correct or not.

So does the 47% reflect just the nature of the complaint or does it reflect what you have verified?

It's just the nature of the complaint.

So this is just the calls we get.

And then, and so then of that 47%, how, how many do you, if you know, what, how many do you verify?

Yeah, they're right.

They don't really have, they're complaining and they're correct.

They don't, the person they're complaining about doesn't have a permit.

Is that the.

I don't have that, but I could get that to you.

Well, I mean, just, it's, it's not so important to have the numbers is your, what's your feel?

Is it, are people generally right when they make that kind of complaint?

I would say it's about 50, 50.

Really?

They're, they, sometimes they don't look up the right address or they don't, what they're saying isn't really happening.

So this is just me sifting through, you know, pages of people's complaints and saying, okay, they're saying there's no permit.

Uh-huh.

Because, I mean, the reason I ask this is that's a, that is almost half, half your complaints, obviously.

Right, right.

And if they, people are generally right, then maybe we've got a different problem than the, than what you're focusing on, which is we've got a lot of people out there operating without permits.

And so we do investigate when we get those.

I just don't have, you know, the number of those that.

I just suggest maybe it's something to take a look at as, as a significant source of, of, of unhappiness or irritation or whatever you want to call it.

Then I, then I, I, the suggestion to allow ADUs to be treated the same way as, say, a detached garage, or excuse me, attached garage that gets converted.

Made me wonder whether you've thought about or whether any other ordinances you're aware of don't, don't regulate by whether it's a, a freestanding building or not, but whether there's a separate entrance for the use of, of the short-term rental.

I don't know in detail about other ordinances that way, but I do, I do know some ordinances do allow ADUs to be used as short-term rental.

There's a lot of them that put a limit on the construction date of that ADU.

So certain ones before a certain date or certain ones after a certain date can be used.

But the ones that do allow it, they do have to be the primary residence.

So they, like, it has to be on their.

Well, what I'm really, what I'm really focused on is, is the entrance.

If you, are you, if you're renting out a room in your house and the entrance, the family uses, the owner uses for the entrance is the same as the one used for the short-term rental.

That's one thing that, that's, that in a way gets at the primary residence aspect.

But if, if the, the owner of the property uses a different entrance than the person who's in the short-term rental, whether it's an attached garage or whether it's an ADU, then I just, I just raise the question whether that's a, a feasible, defensible, sensible way to, to go at this,

rather than whether it's a primary residence or, or a non-primary residence.

Yeah, I think that's an, that's a, that's an, an interesting point.

I think, you know, our struggle might be actually having the manpower to go out and check those things.

So that, so that would be kind of our concern.

You know, having the ownership requirement is, you know, as far as administrative burden, relatively low versus going out and,

inspecting the entrances.

And also I could just see people trying to game that as well.

But that's an interesting point because it does get to the, our, you know, one of our concerns is just like,

we have these two situations and we're treating them really differently.

And when we get those complaints from the operators, you know, I can say the law says what the law says,

but that I always feel kind of bad about saying that if it's not actually advancing what we're trying to advance.

Yeah.

Well, fair point.

Okay.

I mean, if, if, if it administratively is burdensome or infeasible, that certainly is a legitimate consideration.

But coming, so coming back to this, this allowing ADUs that are freestanding to be considered the same as primary residence

and then have unlimited short-term rentals over the course, course of the year.

And in the staff report, it says, well, there are people who build these ADUs and their plan is that they'll rent them out

and make the money back to pay off the ADU.

And I have to say that is not persuasive to me.

And the way I think to, to address that, I mean, we can change this ordinance as you have suggested that that's one way.

The other way is to let people know when they're billing ADU, hey, hey, by the way, don't do this.

If you think you're going to be allowed to just rent it out indefinitely for, for the entire year and be able to, to make enough money off it to pay, to pay it off.

Because, you know, the, a net effect is of this, of this proposal, it seems to me, is to enlarge the number of people and places

that can be rented out on a short-term basis throughout the year without limitation.

And my observation of comments that I've, I've heard, it mostly come from people, neighbors in particular, who say, you know, that's always rented out.

They rent it out all the time.

They're, they might as well be running a, a hotel.

And so, um, I have a little bit, a little, slightly different reaction than, than the, than the chair, um, based on what I've, I've heard now.

And, uh, observed.

And it seems to me that, well, I get the point of trying to treat similar circumstances, uh, similarly, that the, the, maybe the unintended result of this could be actually more and more people in neighborhoods renting out detached, um, uh, structures throughout, indefinitely throughout the year.

Yeah.

Yeah.

It's, it's, it's interesting because we had, um, uh, kind of, uh, really interesting conversation about this with the whole, housing policy work group.

And one of their big concerns, um, what about allowing ADUs was, hey, uh, then all of these ADUs are just going to be short-term rentals and they're not going to be long-term rentals.

Um, and we talked with our, um, you know, our, uh, planning department and they're, you know, they're kind of, they're feeling on it was, well, um, that one that's probably not going to happen.

I mean, there is a demand cap for people, uh, using short-term rentals just generally.

Uh, but also, you know, that ADU will be there for 40 years.

And so if there's some incentive, um, to help it get built, um, you know, then yeah, it might be short-term rental for a little bit, but then it's a new unit that's going to be there, uh, be there for a long time.

Um, and so, you know, one of the things that we had discussed, I, I think that Jackie had mentioned some other jurisdictions do, is you essentially create a date and maybe grandfather in, uh, older, uh, older units, but not the newer ADUs that you're building so that you're, you're clear on that point.

Uh, other jurisdictions don't do that.

Um, or you, some do and some don't.

There's, there's kind of a mixture.

Uh, we ended up, uh, leaning towards the, okay, well, let's help support, you know, maybe provide some more marginal support.

For, uh, the construction of ADUs, um, and, you know, that bring that forward for discussion.

But, you know, we're happy to have the discussion.

Well, I, it's an interesting point that, that, uh, the thesis that building an ADU that you then can finance through short-term rentals ultimately will lead to long-term occupancy of some kind or another is, is an intriguing thought.

I'm not sure I, I'm buying it.

But, I think what, you know, what some, for some people, um, because again, it's,

it's marginal, right?

So, so, for some people it might be, hey, um, you know, I think I've used the example, like, my parents are getting a little bit older.

Um, at some point maybe they're going to need to move in and, you know, we're thinking about whether or not to buy an ADU and this can help.

And we don't know when, when they may have to move in.

And this can help, kind of help support it without having to ultimately evict someone who's a long-term tenant.

Or, you have some folks who are like, uh, you know, I don't know if I want to be a landlord or not.

Um, they can kind of get their feet wet a little bit with, with having a short-term rental.

And then, you know, if that goes okay and they're more comfortable with other people, kind of, in their property,

then maybe they'll consider long-term rental because that's actually, you know, over the long-term that's probably going to be more economical for you.

Uh, because you're not going to have these gaps of it not being rented out.

Yeah.

Um, so those are kind of some of the, and again, we're talking, you know, we're talking kind of cases at the margin here.

But, um, that's kind of why we brought it forward the way we did.

Well, I appreciate, I would just, I, the final thing I would say about this is, is my perspective is probably more concern about neighborhood impacts and competition with people who are, who are in the, whether it's the bed and breakfast business or the hotel business.

Um, it, I, I think it's a relevant, it's a, it's a relevant consideration what the impact of what we do with short-term rentals is in those regard, in those two respects.

And so, um, I, that, that's just my frame of reference for this.

Thank you.

No, that's great.

And, um, I think for me that it, it, it begs an interesting question about, I think your comments go to whether or not we should have a short-term rental policy at all or allow them in our city, which is of course not what we're talking about today.

But, um, it's an interesting question.

Uh, and some cities allow them, some, some don't.

We do here.

Um, and so, you know, how, how we do it is the question.

And, um, so I am interested to hear from the public.

Uh, and then I'd love to turn it back over to the committee.

We have no speakers.

Oh, we have no speakers.

Okay.

Well, in that case, uh, Councillor Pluggiebaum.

Thank you, Chair.

Uh, thank you for bringing this discussion forward.

In general, I'm in support of, um, you know, increased regulation around short-term rental.

Um, but, uh, with one, um, clarification, I think treating owner occupied properties, uh, really distinctly separately from, uh, non owner occupied properties will be a, uh, important part of that distinction.

Um, and then the size, the number of units, um, whether it's a duplex, triplex, or a duplex with an ADU, a junior ADU, you know, thinking about what that looks like in terms of the, um, uh, the mix.

But thank you for bringing this forward.

Okay.

I saw that Councillor Jennings was punched up, but any comments?

Just a quick question.

Cause we talked about the noise level and the, um, operating without a permit.

And I'm trying to understand if what we're doing would make those two things better.

From the 22% noise concerned and the 47% operating without a permit.

Would this in fact help us or hurt us or keep everything to say?

So I think specifically for the noise, um, our kind of rationale is that if I'm the owner of the property and I'm, I'm living there, um, I'm going to be more, um, I don't want to say strict isn't necessarily the word, but more vigilant about what my, uh, short term rental guests are doing.

Right. So if I'm a investor and I live in San Francisco and I'm, you know, operating a short term rental, uh, I don't really care so much.

I'm not going to care as much, um, about the property as if I live there and I have to interact with my neighbors.

Um, so we're, what we're hoping to do is cut down, um, you know, people running to party houses and things like that, that really disturb the neighborhood.

Um, because it is, you know, you're, you're living there and you have to face all the people, uh, who live next door to you who are going to be really mad if you have some bad tenants in there.

Um, we're also hoping that tying it to, um, the ownership of the property makes it really easy for us to regulate and get code enforcement out there, um, if someone is illegally operating, um, a short term rental.

So we're hoping that, that taking away the secondary permit will help improve both of those complaint types.

Thank you.

Um, so for me, um, well, one, I, I appreciate the presentation and for bringing this forward.

I think it makes a lot of sense to, to streamline what we're doing because as a member of the public, it should be, it should be easy enough to navigate the process and understand what's expected of you.

And I think for most people, whatever it is that this body and this council decides that there will, they would happily apply, um, you know, adhere to, but they don't always know what's expected of them.

And sometimes it's not intuitive.

So I've always appreciate efforts to try to streamline and make it easier for people to understand and follow the rules.

Um, I did receive, um, I have received complaints through my office about some of the concerns that you've raised.

I think those are real, um, whether it's, you know, 50% or not, the number is real.

I don't know, but I do know that, that there are real concerns in neighborhoods and I want to validate that.

You know, if you live in a neighborhood where you have someone who's operating a short term rental and you have, you know, let's say it's the party house or something like that.

Well, we know that happens, right?

Um, and, and certainly that happens in other places and it's a, it's a hard nut to crack, but it's definitely something we should keep striving to do because your quality of life shouldn't be diminished because you happen to live next to a short term rental.

Um, and so I think that's a great goal.

One of the things that I was compelled by, by, um, one of my constituents that reached out to me is, uh, example relative to number of units.

So for example, like if in the central city or in like North Oak park, there's a lot of, uh, small cottage courts or triplexes in those areas.

And sometimes you'll have, you know, the, the owner living on site in one of the units and there might be three other units on the property.

And let's say one or two of those units is used for a short term rental for things like, and I used to do this by the way, when I first moved in with my partner, um, uh, I owned a home and I wasn't sure what I wanted to do with it.

Yeah. I was like, am I going to sell this?

Am I going to sell this? I'm going to keep it like, what does this mean for me?

And, but I'm, you know, don't have the resources to just let it sit there and not have the mortgage be paid.

And so I actually did, um, a rental for traveling nurses, which was usually between two and three months at a time.

And while I figured out what I wanted to do next, I figured out that I don't like being a landlord and I'm not good at it.

And so, um, I ended up not continuing on that, but it, it, it, to your point, Pete, about people figuring out whether or not they want the property to be long term or something else, um, I think is valid.

And so in that circumstance, I wonder if we can craft something because to me, it seems logical that you might be allowed, like that person should be allowed to do that on like one or two of those properties.

And so I'm wondering if we can do, you know, my direction would be, you know, if we had a properties of four units or fewer inclusive of onsite EDUs where the permit T operates, occupies one of those units full time that we allow the other units to be potentially short term rentals or at least like one or two of them.

Um, because I know that those circumstances currently exist, um, in some of the neighborhoods that I represent and I have received concerns from some of those individuals.

And so just wanted to open up that as a possibility and get the comments of my colleagues on that.

Um, because I don't, what I don't want to do is, um, we do like things like traveling nurses.

That is a reality.

I mean, the, the second largest employers in, in Sacramento besides the government is the healthcare industry, right?

We've got UC Davis medical, we've got Sutter, we've got, you know, and there are a lot of people who travel from other places usually for two or three months at a time to live in our city and they also need places to live.

And so, you know, and if we don't create pathways for them to do that, then they're going to be taking up other units that could potentially be used for people who are looking for long term rentals.

And so those are just the realities of the situation as I see it.

So that would be my direction, um, that we have a pathway for that to exist if, um, for four units or fewer.

Okay.

Um, other than that, um, I'm, I'm good with this ordinance or these changes as written, um, and then barring any other comments from my colleagues.

I don't think this needs a motion.

This is just direction.

Um, and so do you have the direction you need?

Uh, yes, I think we have the direction we need and we'll work with the city attorney's office, um, to draft the ordinance.

And then is it the preference to go come back to the committee with the ordinance or go to council?

Uh, I'd like to go straight to council unless there are any concerns.

So straight to council, please.

Okay.

We will do that.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay.

And now we move on to our next item.

Item number six.

Universal design for residential dwellings.

Welcome.

Good morning, Chair Maple and members of the Law and Legislation Committee.

My name is Greta Seuss.

I'm a senior planner in our community development department and I'm here to present to you proposed amendments to the city's existing universal design ordinance.

Um, and today we're asking that the committee pass a motion forwarding this ordinance, uh, amendments to the city council for consideration.

Today I'll provide an overview of the current ordinance, outline the scope of this project, review a summary of proposed amendments and end with a timeline of next steps.

The city's universal design ordinance was adopted in 2010 and it's based off of the state's model universal design ordinance.

The current ordinance applies to new residential development of 20 or more units in the R1 and R1A zones.

It requires that at least one model in the development includes universal design features listed in the ordinance that could be installed at the request of the home buyer.

The buyer could select any of the universal design options listed in the ordinance and the developer is required to provide those options at the buyer's expense.

In summary, the ordinance does not require that all universal design features listed in the ordinance be constructed.

They must just be available to purchaser in it to purchasers in at least one model of each project.

Key features that are required to be offered include accessible primary and secondary entries accessible exterior and interior routes.

An accessible bathroom on route from the primary entry, an accessible kitchen, common use room and bedroom on the primary entry levels and accessible routes to miscellaneous areas or facilities.

It also includes conduit for the future wiring of assistive technologies in all exterior walls, outlets at the bottom and top of any stairs to facilitate the use of a chairlift and other general components such as rocker light switches and controls, etc.

The housing element provides the city direction to review and update this ordinance to provide clarification on how and when the ordinance is applied and also commits the city to partnering with AARP and resources for independent living to increase awareness of the city's universal design ordinance.

Attachment four of this staff report includes a summary of outreach conducted to date as well as a summary of the feedback received.

Staff conducted a survey with home builders in August of last year to gather initial input from the perspective of home builders.

Staff also met with AARP and resources for independent living for initial input.

We held meetings with the housing policy working group, the planning and design commission and disabilities advisory commission as well.

Home builders generally only requested greater clarity in application of the ordinance.

The planning and design commission and disabilities advisory commission directed staff to conduct more outreach to increase awareness of the ordinance in alignment with our housing element program direction.

And some members of the disabilities advisory commission also suggested that the threshold number of units to which the ordinance applies be lowered from 20 units.

And that at least one model be required to construct universal design features not just offer them.

The following proposed amendments are presented to this committee today.

First a definition of development phase is proposed to be added to aiding clarity of application of the ordinance.

The scope and application of the ordinance has also been amended to reduce the threshold number of units to which the ordinance requirements apply from 20 to 15 units in response to the disabilities advisory commission feedback.

Reference to the R1 and R1 zones is also being removed due to work underway to modify the planning and development code.

And lastly in addition to the new definition of development phase language has been added to clarify that multi-phase development projects must adequately meet the intent of the ordinance by offering at least one model in each marketed phase of the project.

Continuing on language has been added to exempt housing development projects that are subject to California building code chapter 11 a and 11 b which have more universal design and accessibility requirements.

Additionally modifications are proposed to only require universal design standards for powder room and bathroom facilities if a powder room or bathroom is offered on the primary entry level.

And similarly modifications are proposed to only require universal design standards for common use rooms on the primary entry level if a common use room exists.

And these last two proposed amendments mirror the way that features are currently required of kitchens and bathrooms.

As outlined in the staff report following adoption of ordinance amendments staff will conduct outreach to increase awareness of the ordinance to potential home buyers.

Potential outreach methods could include presentations and brochure distribution at existing meetings and events.

Postcard mailings radio advertisements or email campaigns.

Postcard mailings radioince María drukta.

Byproducts Ecuador encarnades and经-wide vendors Education Administration States algunas personas

serve sick caters for unionity segment família àוכit país.

The state sampligkeit in succes tt south cap visa for underfundation persoon defence basis for all

recommendations recommended by the Disabilities Advisory Commission that staff will be reaching

out to to partner on outreach events. Pending approval from this committee today, staff

will be bringing these amendments for approval by the City Council in July. And if approved

on July 29th, the ordinance amendments would be effective on August 28th, 30 days from

the adoption date. This concludes my presentation and I'm available for questions along with

Daniel Valencia, supervising engineer in the building plan review section, and Remy Mendoza,

long range planning manager. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Seuss. I have learned from our City

Clerk that we do not have any public comment on this item. I just have a couple quick questions

and then I'll pass it off to my colleagues. One, it's my, did the Disability Advisory Commission,

did they recommend 15 or did they recommend a lower number? They just recommended a lower

number. I think there was just a desire to see more of these, you know, options being offered.

So, no specific number but lower. Okay. And to your understanding, the 15 is something

that's acceptable to the commission? Or at least informally as you've talked to them?

You know, a couple of Disabilities Advisory Commission members did provide e-comments and were supportive

of this approach. So, we haven't vetted that specific number with the commission but we believe

that it's responsive to that request. Okay. That's good to know. I, I've heard the number 10.

I, but I, I'll leave it up to you to have those conversations. But just as long as, I think it's

important especially for something like this that we get like the full feedback from the commission

that's working on this and value their inputs. I appreciate that you've done that. And then my other

question is around existing developments. So, you have the current unit count at 20 and then this

would modify it to 15. If you're in between that 15 and 20, how does, how would that work moving forward?

Um, if it's greater than 15 then, then the requirements would apply.

And this is for new moving forward.

Yes.

So, that, that makes sense. Okay. So, we wouldn't need to let grandfather in. Okay.

With that, I'll move over to Council Member Dickinson.

Council Member Dickinson. Thanks, Chair. Um, I, I also had the question about

setting the 15 units and especially, uh, in light of, of, um, state legislation, which is moving to,

and has, has moved in the direction of allowing more that's in the nature of 10 or fewer units by right.

Uh, it does, I think it does raise the question, um, whether, whether, say 10 is, is, is an appropriate,

uh, benchmark as opposed to 15. But I, but I don't necessarily, um, advocate that. I just,

I just think it's worth a, worth a conversation. Um, I, I had a different question as well, which,

um, uh, is whether, and I, I didn't see it described. So, um, uh, I'm not sure whether

counter height and cabinet heights are addressed in the universal design, uh, guidelines or criteria.

Do you know? Um, I don't recall the specifics. Daniel might be able to jump. Yeah, he's, I think

that's, it's, there are a lot of specific requirements. But, um, I believe they're addressed

just via, you know, requiring accessible, um, you know, bathrooms or kitchens. So, those are

ways to address that. I just, I don't recall off the top of my head. Okay. Um, how they're addressed

exactly in each section of the requirements. Okay. Same, same for you. Uh, no, the, uh,

counter heights, they're not addressed in the ordinance. Not specifically. Not specifically.

But under the general rubric of accessibility, you might think it would be included. I, I mean,

I think that counter heights and cabinet heights and, uh, are, uh, two things that, uh, uh, I hear a

lot of comments about in terms of, of, of accessibility. You know, I mean, if you're, uh, if, if you're in a

wheelchair, for, for example, you can't necessarily reach a typical cabinet height or counter height very,

very simply. But maybe, um, between now and the next time this comes back, if you have the opportunity

to take a look and see how that's addressed, if at all, I, I'd appreciate it. I, I, I think if it's not.

Yeah. Um, so counter heights are addressed in the, the California building code and the

residential. They're just not specifically addressed in the ordinance themselves as part of the

universal design ordinance. So if somebody is designing accessible features, they would lean

on the building code and the residential code to define what those features are. And the counter

heights are defined in the, um, California building code for accessibility. Okay. Uh, but not,

but not cabinet heights, cabinet heights. Yes. So counter heights. Yeah. Counter heights,

cabinet heights, um, uh, sink heights, uh, reach distances. Yeah. Chapter 11 A and B of the California

building code go, go pretty far in depth. There's, there's kick dimensions for on the kick plates on

cabinets and everything as well. Yeah. I, thank you for that. I mean, I, I assume they must, they must

be, because it's such an, it seems like such an obvious thing once you start thinking about it,

but I wasn't sure. Um, I also, uh, I appreciate the outreach you, you've done and the suggestions made. I had some other,

uh, ideas about additional outreach, uh, to organizations like, like pride or, um, in Alliance,

um, the Society for the Blind, uh, MS Society, multi, uh, muscular dystrophy, those, those kinds of

organizations which, uh, are, are often helping or service, servicing or knowledgeable about, uh, people

with various limitations and, and in need of accessible features. So, um, uh, resource for

independent living, uh, the disability advisory committee, I'm all great sources. So, I, I don't

mean to suggest that, that they, that there's something inadequate about that, but I do think

you might get some, uh, additional or different perspectives from some of the other organizations

as well. So, uh, that just some suggestions for you.

Ms. We'll add those. Thank you.

Ms. Thanks, Chair.

Ms. And our Vice Chair, Pluckibom.

Mr. Thanks, Chair. I'm really excited about this item. Uh, just quick shout out to, uh, former

Planning Commissioner, Alex Ogilvie. She was pushing us a decade ago on this, uh, and I'm really excited

to see us, uh, catching up now. Um, uh, this is exactly the kind of, uh, thing that people like me

run for public office to support. I'm so excited to, to even be a part of, of this conversation, um, and look

forward to, uh, moving the item. Are we accepting motions at this time, Chair?

Ms. Absolutely.

Mr. I move the item, uh, as, as, uh, staff recommends.

Ms. We have a motion.

Second.

Ms. And a second. Any comments from Councilman Jennings?

There would be a third.

Ms. Okay. Well, well said by the team. So, with that, all those in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Ms. Any opposed or abstain? Passes unanimously.

Thank you very much. This is a discussion.

Did I just do a motion?

I don't know. We have a motion. Okay.

Moving on to our next item. Thank you very much.

We have item number seven, um, relating to city hall facilities. Welcome.

Good morning, right? Good morning.

Um, Lady Milstein, interim city manager.

At the mayor's request, the city attorney's office has prepared a proposed ordinance

that would further align the city's critical infrastructure ordinance with current law

by removing the exception to sit or lie Monday through Friday during certain hours.

This would provide for the reduction of efforts associated with city hall cleanup

and reallocation of bike patrol to alternative venues in the morning hours.

Staff is here if you have any questions.

Okay. And do we have public comment on this item?

No speakers on this item.

Okay. Um, opening up to my colleagues for any questions for the interim city manager.

Or PD or?

Or PD or anyone else.

DCR.

Councilmember Jennings.

Thank you very much.

Um, just a couple of questions.

Um, I just want to try to get some answers, uh, relative to

the cost to the city associated with the cleanups, um, that we've had on a weekly basis and on weekends

when the unhoused are allowed to camp, um, at city hall.

Sure. Um, we spend, um, we have a rapid response team, which is two PD and one DCR.

Um, and we have a cleanup team, which is a basic team.

They're, um, $394 an hour together, 365 days a year is about $143,000.

And then we spend, um, public works on exterior cleaning, um, over the, a 12 month period about 208,000.

So all in about 350, 355 that, um, we could then we, we wouldn't save money, but those resources would be reallocated.

Okay.

Thank you.

So, um, and is that over what period of time?

That's an annual cost.

Annual cost.

And how many, how long have we been doing that?

Oh, 2018.

That's when this exception was added or adopted.

So we were in our seventh year.

Okay.

All right.

And then second question is, um, number of criminal incidents on the property, uh,

and how many of those criminal incidents have, uh, affected city staff?

Um, I don't have an example number, but I can tell you that there have been, um, um, incidents of criminal activity,

both in the city hall property and the city hall garage.

And it has affected city staff as they go to and from, um, as the folks who are camping are noncompliant with the hours of camping.

And so people are arriving or, and or leaving work and encountering them and having not positive experiences.

But we don't have the number now.

I don't have a number on hand.

I apologize for that, but we can certainly have that when this moves to council.

And I think the number I'm looking for is not just relative to 2024, 2025.

I want to go all the way back to 2018 just to see the magnitude of the impact of employees who have been injured

or affected in any way as it relates to, um, a decision we made back then.

We'll try to get both of those for you.

Then in the last year, um, this is my last question.

Um, what has been the cost to the city for the police to respond to criminal activity

and remove or vacate the unhoused on the weekend mornings or weekday mornings or on the weekends?

And if that cost is in that 355, then it is, it is the majority of it.

It's about two thirds of that.

So at least a hundred thousand.

Including a DCR when available.

And so the, these questions, I asked these questions because

we haven't had the opportunity to really speak on this and talk to a decision that we made years ago.

Um, and we thought it was a good decision and we, some may still think it's a good decision.

Um, and I guess the question is, is can we afford that decision, um, going forward?

So, uh, I'd like to hear my colleagues before I continue on.

Thank you, council member.

Um, next we have council member Dickinson.

Uh, thanks chair.

I am supportive of this change.

Uh, I, I, I think it's consistent with, with the way other, um, governmental buildings,

the capital, the county administration building, um, address this.

So, so, um, I, I, I do think it, it makes, it makes sense.

I, the only cautionary note I, I would have is that, that people are advised that this change

is coming because I'm sure, although I have not personally verified, I'm sure there are people

who have expectation that this will go on indefinitely.

Uh, that, that is the, the availability of the space.

And so, um, advising people in a, as much as possible in advance that, that, uh, this as a locale

is no longer going to be available.

I, I, I think hopefully can lead to some, uh, constructive, uh, placements for people, uh, and, um, minimize any, any conflict

or disruption, uh, in, uh, in the change of, uh, policy.

So, thanks.

Thank you.

Um, I, I have a question.

Maybe this will be more for Brian Pedro.

Um, obviously, you know, we have an impacted system currently.

Um, we don't have enough places for everybody who needs them under our current system.

We know that and have not acknowledged that.

So, specifically for folks who are outside of City Hall, um, in the evening times, um, will we be increasing

the amount of outreach that we're doing to try to get them into the system if they're not already

and try to get them into some kind of, um, help that they might need?

Uh, yeah.

So, um, going back to what, uh, Council Member Dickinson said, we would make, do as much pre-efforts

that we can in offering outreach and making sure that they are educated that this is, uh, not available

anymore so that we don't have that just cut off date.

Uh, and we do have shelter spaces come available daily.

Um, you know, one, two spots here and there that we have to offer up and we stay on top

of that.

So anytime that something's opened, that's available.

Um, obviously we're trying to open more space, but, uh, we will.

But as people congregate in outside of City Hall, are we regularly going to those people and offering

them open spaces?

Um, I wouldn't say regularly, but we do put it on our route in the mornings to come by.

Um, a lot of people are already packing up or have already left.

Um, but, um, we could, we could increase that effort and get people out here more often.

Okay.

Thank you.

Yeah.

Um, I really agree with the concept.

I, me personally have, I've experienced issues.

Thank you.

Coming, um, coming to City Hall and, um, having interactions, negative interactions with folks

who might be, um, camping outside of there, whether, you know, it's not every person, it's

not most people, but, you know, occasionally it does happen.

I know that our staff has experienced harassment as well.

I've, I've heard those stories and I think it's really important that our workers come

to a safe workplace, um, that they feel comfortable walking into and walking out of in the evening.

And I think that's very important.

It also aligns with, um, what other buildings in the area do.

Um, but I, you know, this is a much bigger issue, but it just, it, it's still very difficult for me

emotionally to, to, to wrap my mind around the fact that we still have people who they don't

have anywhere to go.

Um, and that's not, that's not all on us as a city, but, um, we certainly, um, see that all

over the city of Sacramento.

And this is just, you know, another layer of us as a city, we have a, we do a really good job of

telling you where you can't be.

Um, and, and a lot of that is for very good reason, whether it be critical infrastructure,

it's near school, it's near places where people need to, to be and be safely.

But, um, I really hope that we can all continue to work on together.

How do we create more spaces where people can be?

I know that we're doing that.

I know that our mayor is focused on that in this body and our city manager about creating,

um, more opportunities for tiny homes and, and other shelter and housing, but it's just

still really challenging, you know, uh, for me to, to wrap my mind around.

I'm not, so I just wanted to state that out loud and let for, for the public to know, I

think we all, we all deal with that, um, that change, that challenge.

And as I, I consider this item, I certainly have that in the back of my mind.

Um, and so Councilman Jennings.

Thank you.

Um, I too join you in, um, my compassion for those who are, are without a home and

want to do everything we can to make sure that we do find a place for them and work

with them to get off the streets and find a permanent home, not a home, um, that's on the streets.

Um, but at the same time, this is city hall and is the city hall of the city of Sacramento.

Um, and we have to have a suitable work environment for our employees and not only our employees, but all of our visitors.

And when people are getting hurt coming to and from work, when people are afraid to come to and from work,

it decreases their ability to get the work done that has to be done here at city hall.

And so, um, we have a vibrant downtown and many employees who

participate in activities downtown.

have to come back to city hall and they have to come back to city hall and they're putting their,

their sales in danger by doing so.

And doing that.

And so that's why I asked the question is how many employees have been hurt as a result of

coming to and from city hall.

And so then as, as the head of P and PE, and I'm trying to hire people or to come to work for the city of Sacramento.

And they hear about the incidents of what's going on.

It puts us in jeopardy of getting the most highly qualified people to come to work for us.

And so I want to make sure the city hall is a safe, secure place for the public, for our employees,

and anyone that wants to live, work and play right here in this, in this building.

And I don't want this to be a place where people have fear.

And so that's why I want to make sure that we do everything as possible to find a home for those who

are unhoused, but at the same time, make this home city hall, a place where all employees,

all visitors feel like they can come at any point in time.

And this is a safe place for them to come.

Okay.

Hearing that, seeing no other public comment, we'll do a roll call though on this item.

Madam Quirk.

Thank you.

Council Member Dickinson?

Aye.

Council Member Pleckybaum?

Aye.

Council Member Jennings?

Aye.

And Chair Maple.

I will be abstaining, but I'll reserve my right to vote differently at the next hearing.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay.

Move on to our next item, which is item number eight.

We have a council member proposal request for digital signage.

Do we have a presentation on this item?

So Chair, this is a council member proposal and the action before the committee is to decide if

staff should begin working on this council member proposal.

It's not about the content of the item itself.

Right.

Okay.

So what I will do then just for the public's edification is I will read the subject matter of the proposal so

folks know what we're discussing here.

And then I don't, I'm assuming because Councilor McGeira is not on this committee, he is not allowed to be here to discuss it due to the Brown Act.

So I'm a little bit curious if we have questions about the proposal.

How should we go about that as a committee?

So the process that's outlined in our council member, our council rules procedure is such that the proposal itself

should stand on itself and have as much information in it to determine for this committee could determine if it warrants staff work to do for the research.

Okay.

Okay.

So great, great reminder for this committee that this is just an up or down vote.

Do we want stuff to work on this or not?

And so the subject matter of this proposal by Council Member Guerra, I'm sorry, Mayor Pro Tem Guerra and Council Member Plugiebaum as well.

I, you're also on this proposal.

So we'll direct questions to you.

I didn't see that at first.

Amend the ordinance in the city code relating to signage to allow digital signage in Zone B, Level 3, in the ESC Sign District,

as well as extend the term of the district for 15 years to December 31, 2049.

The proposal would, one, allow digital signage in Zone B, Level 3, within the district,

and two, extend the term of the district for an additional 15 years.

The rationale for this recommendation is that digital signs are currently allowed up to 75 feet within Zone B, Level 2, of the district,

and static signs are currently allowed up to 125 feet within Zone B, Level 3.

They request the extension of digital signage into Zone B, Level 3 parameters.

And these changes would allow flexibility and advertisement opportunities within the district boundary and result in increased tax revenue.

Okay.

Um, so do we have any public comment on this item?

I do have one speaker on this item.

Scott Ford.

Welcome.

Good afternoon, Chair Maple, members of the committee, city staff.

Scott Ford on behalf of the Downtown Sacramento Partnership, a property-based improvement district right here in the heart of Sacramento.

Uh, just, uh, I'll be brief, but, uh, just want to convey a support for the proposed amendments.

Uh, we've seen the, uh, the sign district around the Golden One Center, the ESC, uh, be a real value add to the central city and into Sacramento as a whole.

Uh, it drives vibrancy.

It drives the type of use type diversification that we want to continue to see more and more in, in, in our evolving, uh, city.

Uh, and, uh, we know that, uh, these, this type of technology, it requires investment, uh, to make sure that the signage is,

keeps up with, uh, with the technology.

Um, also the proposed amendments cover, uh, that, that level three, where when you have a static sign, it, uh, produces more waste, uh, you know, when you're replacing those signs.

So the idea of being able to digitize some of the, uh, the zone three signs, we think, uh, you know, makes a lot of sense from, uh, a value standpoint, but also from a sustainability standpoint.

So thank you for the opportunity to comment, uh, strong support again for this item.

Wonderful.

Thank you.

Um, and then I'll open it up to Council Member Plotter.

I'll open it up to Council Member Plotter to do an opening statement.

In the immortal words of the five-man electric band, sign signs everywhere signs as made popular by Sacramento's own Tesla.

Uh, I move staff recommendation.

Okay.

We have a motion.

Um, I have, I have a question for you, um, which is, do you, uh, know how the revenue is currently distributed under the current ordinance that we have?

I do not.

Okay.

Okay.

Um, that's a, that's a question I have.

And maybe that, I will say this too, um, assuming that we do move this forward, uh, because I, I personally support that.

I'd love to see this move forward.

I'm compelled to see downtown partnership here to, to support that as well.

Um, and, uh, also, I, you know, I mentioned this often, love to travel, and I think, um, we need to move into the 21st century and have digital signs be aligned with our other signage ordinances.

But, um, I'd love to understand how the revenue structure currently works.

Um, my, I think my understanding is that some portion, uh, 15%, I think it is, goes to the Sacramento Kings.

The rest goes to the ownership of the signs.

I don't know if there's any city revenue share at all.

Um, if, if there's, if I would love to know what that is as this comes forward, um, staff works on this.

And then the possibility, if there isn't a city share, um, is there a possibility to open up those conversations and see if there could be?

I don't know the answer to that, but I would love to know.

Um, and then I will pass it over to Council Member Dickinson.

Thanks.

I, I have to confess that my laptop has not worked on this item.

So I'm, I'm just looking at it now.

So, um, since we got you here, Council Member Plucky's own,

can you just describe the practical effect of, of this proposal?

Uh, when and where and what?

This would direct staff to, um, bring back an analysis of, um, uh, what, uh, an expanded site ordinance could look like for us.

So just giving us the opportunity to evaluate that proposal.

But, but where would it apply and, and what, what would, what would be the, um, parameters of, of signage that could be, um, if this, if this became, um,

if we adopted this, what would be the, the change in signage that would be allowed and where?

Yeah, we're looking just at the, um, uh, around the Golden Wand ESC, um, and, you know, all, all the, the signs that we've previously, previously permitted, uh, would I think be, you know, uh, comparable.

Um, so it really is just about, uh, creating, uh, revenue opportunities on some existing properties in and around the ESC as we're expanding that, um, closer to the rail yards and the intermodal.

Oh, okay.

So, so we can get to a chance to look at that if this moves on.

Yeah, but kind of more of the same.

Okay.

All right.

Thanks.

Great.

Um, and I, another, another, um, question came to mind for me is, um, the extension.

So the current, the current ordinance goes until 2035, I believe, or 2030.

Um, but this would extend it out to 2049.

What's the rationale for, uh, the extension for that period of time?

Uh, security for lease revenue.

Okay.

So that they know that they, they have an expectation that they can expect this.

Okay.

So, um, anything from, um, from Councilman Jennings?

Okay.

So, um, I'm happy to.

And, Chair, just to clarify my motion is the, um, uh, the second option directing, uh, uh,

staff to do the work answering the questions that you've raised and, and Supervisor Dick,

or, sorry, Councilmember Dickinson as well.

I promised I wouldn't do that anymore.

Um, and, uh, bring this back to the City Council for review consideration.

So, uh, recommendation two was what I should have said.

Okay.

That's, that's the motion.

Is there a second?

Uh, I'll second it.

Second by Assemblymember Dickinson.

Adding all the titles in there.

Okay.

Yeah.

All those in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed or abstained?

Okay.

That passes unanimously.

The staff will begin working on that.

And I look forward to seeing, seeing it come back, uh, with some of our questions and,

um, and information on that item.

We move now to our second Councilmember proposal request for consideration, um, which is the pilot

program for homeowner encroachments.

This is by, uh, the Vice Mayor Talamantes.

Um, let me read also from this so that the public understands what this proposal is proposing

to do.

Um, it directs the City of Sacramento staff to create and operate a three-year pilot program

to allow homeowners with encroachments along the Ninos Parkway to pay the City of Sacramento

a permit fee of $25 annually.

The rationale for this recommendation is there are currently several dozen homes along the

Ninos Parkway that have encroachments on city-owned land.

City code explicitly states that these are illegal and must be removed or homeowners are

at risk of litigation.

Encroachment permits can already be obtained for signage, light posts, fencing, billboards,

and other structures.

Many of these encroachments have been there for decades and the neighbors would like to

work with the City of Sacramento staff on finding a solution to address, uh, community

concerns.

So this proposal would allow the staff to work on that, work with the community members

along the Ninos Parkway, um, and, uh, come up with hopefully with a resolution that works

for everyone.

And so, uh, with that, do we have any public comment on this item?

Um, yes, Chair.

I have three speakers on this item.

Wonderful.

First is Annette Emery, Patrick Cody, and then Marbella Sala.

Welcome.

Hi there.

I'm Annette Emery, and I've lived off the Ninos Parkway, both off Morella and now off of

Fairweather for around 25 years.

It's, and I've talked to neighbors.

It's not so much the fees.

I would really like to make sure this is totally thought out before putting this in place.

I want to read, I have a neighbor who, when she bought her house, this is what was advertised.

Um, a big bonus is easement at the back of the property owners are using for a garden and deluxe

chicken coop condo.

She bought the house like that.

She, at this point, she has a wire fence and she keeps it unlocked so that people can go in

because she does have chickens.

And there's other ones.

I'm sure everybody knows Georgia's yard, where it's a beautiful park space that really keeps,

uh, it keeps it clean.

To me, these are totally different than people built very tall fences with no access.

I just really want you to talk to the neighbors and get to know this, including some neighbors that

homeless went in, had a campsite, built a fire, their fence burned.

And I did go and get neighbors together to build a fence around it to give them space so that

their place would burn.

One other thing I do want to bring up, I moved in about a year and a half ago where I am now.

When they remodeled the house, they threw everything over the fence.

My husband has been trying to clean it up because we would like to be able to get to Nino's Parkway.

It's very difficult right now because it's uneven.

City at one point put irrigation, it's broken.

We, the neighbors, do water the trees.

We keep it mowed.

So if you're saying nothing in the future, I would like to go and be able to put down an

area in there.

Does that stop it?

Please talk to the neighbors and slow this down to really get an idea of all the ins and

outs.

I also sent some comments you might want to look at because there's a lot to this.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I've ridden my bike along the parkway and seen that chicken coop.

It's a very nice coop.

Patrick?

Patrick?

Welcome.

Thank you.

I lived through a year of digging up white thistle.

We moved from south of West El Camino to north, which is a nice place, but from one side of

the area to the other side, nobody had done anything about it.

These white thistles, they get green and they have purple flowers and they get white flowers

on top and then they spread.

They were from one end to the other.

They're highly, you know, easy to burn and stuff like that.

We just fortunately didn't.

Nobody was, everybody was saying somebody else was supposed to.

But the city, the power lines go through there for the Western Power Association or something.

So that took a lot of work and they finally have gotten a couple runs through there now.

At the beginning, it was just something else and the neighbors didn't do anything because

they had a bunch of stumps.

There was stumps there.

There were some rocks down.

Different parts of the parkway are neglected.

Other parts are really well taken care of.

The people that take care of them, they don't want to be losing them or paying too much money for them.

And so it just kind of works out.

It has worked out.

So I don't want to, I hope the city won't get involved and try and mess things up.

The one real problem that I have is on the east side of the parkway there.

They have fences built out, regular backyard fences, 20, 30 feet out into the parkway, blocked off.

It's completely taken over by these homeowners.

There's 10 of them or something.

I don't know how many.

But they have taken, whether they put in a pool or a doughboy pool, they have taken the spaces and are using them for themselves.

I think maybe they ought to pay some or increase their property taxes.

But other people on my side, they're working really hard to.

Thank you for your comments, sir.

Your time is complete.

Our final speaker is Marbella Sala.

Welcome.

Welcome.

Good afternoon.

So I'm here as president of Garden La Northgate Neighborhood Association, and we have this discussion.

And I just want to say that GN&A appreciates our vice mayor, Talamantes, putting this forward

and being proactive in trying to address this issue of encroachment.

And it's been a long time that has been an issue.

And the fact that she's wanting to have a discussion that brings in the community and those neighbors, particularly around on Nino's Parkway, is very important.

And there are some really nice spaces.

I love the chicken coop in the gardens.

And there are several people that really extended and put nice gardens.

And there is, they take care of it, and it's well taken care of, and there's others that's not.

So having the community and those that live there sit down with the city staff and come up with something that works for everyone,

because there are different issues depending on how long you've been there and what you have.

And I think finding a solution that works for everyone and including them is really important.

And that's GN&A's position, is have a discussion whether those that live there are having a community meeting and just bringing it forth and figuring out how it can work is important.

And I appreciate, and we, GN&A, appreciate that the vice mayor is putting this forward and working with the community.

And that's something that's going to work for all of us.

And beautify Nino's Parkway, because it needs it.

Thank you.

Ms. Sala.

Thank you very much to the public who came to testify.

I would like to take the pleasure to make a motion to move this forward for staff to work on it with the explicit direction,

that staff work with the neighbors that are along the parkway, as well as the vice mayor's office,

on, it sounds like there are, you know, a myriad of potential issues that should be considered as a part of this proposal.

And so I think that's a great place to start, and that would be my motion.

So with that, I'll move over to the vice chair, Pluggiebaum.

Second.

And just to clarify, that's staff recommendation number two to direct counsel, or to bring an item back to the counsel directly?

Yes.

Thank you.

Councilor Dickinson.

I just have a question, and I'm perfectly fine with advancing this.

Pilot usually means you're testing something out, and you're going to see if it works or not.

And then with that evaluation, you either expand it and make it permanent, or you say, whoops, that didn't work.

We'll try something else, or we'll just go back to the way things were.

Do we know?

Is the intention here to see if this pilot works on the parkway, and then if it does make these conditions permanent as a template for people who have encroachments into the,

and who would qualify into the parkway, or is, I guess what I'm, I don't guess, what I'm asking is, is there inherent in the proposal some evaluation at a point in time about whether this has worked well or not?

And if there isn't, is that something that we might want to suggest at least be raised as an issue at the next step?

A great point.

The way it reads in here is that it's a three-year pilot program.

So there's the three-year mark, I'm assuming that that's, but I think that's a really valid point that you make.

So what the staff come up with, along with the vice mayor and the neighbors, you know, assuming that it gets agreed upon and moves forward for those three years,

I think it would be appropriate to have a look back after those three years to determine whether or not it's working and maybe a report back to the council.

And I'm happy to make that as a part of my motion.

I think that makes sense.

And I missed the three years in the description, so I apologize for that.

But I think that would be good to, you know, to evaluate it, see if it's working.

Because, you know, as described, I think, by Annette, there are those encroachments onto the parkway which you'd say add.

They are a net benefit to the parkway.

And there are those you would say aren't not so much.

And so how does this work, I think, is important to take a look at.

Great points.

And then do you accept that additional direction as the seconder?

Okay, great.

And anything from Councillor Jennings on the side?

Okay.

So all those in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed or abstained?

That passes unanimously.

And I know the vice mayor very much looks forward to working with the neighbors on this item.

Okay.

So we move on to our next item, which is our committee comments, questions, ideas, AB 1234 reports.

Any of those?

Seeing none.

Do we have any public comments for matters not on the agenda?

We have no speakers for matters not on the agenda.

Okay.

So with that, we are adjourned at 1221 p.m.

Thank you.

Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you.

kanji so

you

Thank you.

Thank you.