All right, with that, welcome everyone to our very first Law and Legislation Committee

meeting of 2026. I'm going to have to get used to writing that year on papers. It always takes a while.

So with that, Madam Clerk, will you please call the roll and establish a quorum? Thank you.

Council Member Dickinson, Council Member Pluckybaum, Council Member Jennings, and Chair Maple.

I am here. And then please rise if you are able.

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

and tribal lands. To the original people of this land, the Nisanan people, the southern Maidu,

Valley and Plains Miwok, Putuan Wintu 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 today in the active

practice of acknowledgement and appreciation for Sacramento's indigenous peoples history,

contributions and lives remain standing salute and pledge I pledge allegiance to

the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands

one nation under God indivisible with liberty and justice for all fabulous as

always if you are interested in speaking on any of the agenda items including the

consent calendar you can find slips in the back of the room please fill that

out and bring them up to the front here which they'll process your form and we look forward

to hearing from you today here in 2026. So with that we'll bring it to the consent calendar. Any

of my colleagues want to make any comments or pull any items from the consent calendar?

Seeing none do we have any public comment on the consent calendar? Chair I have no more speakers

no speakers on. Okay we have a motion and a second all those in favor please say aye.

Any opposed or abstain? That passes unanimously. Moving on to item four, our 2026 planning and zoning work program. Welcome.

Director with the community development departments and I'm happy to present the 2026 planning and zoning work program.

So I'll give you a brief background on just the process of developing this program.

some program accomplishments from 2025 and some work program highlights.

So we start with a presentation of this program, draft program to the commission in September

and get feedback, questions, comments.

And then we come back to the commission.

There's actually an attachment in the staff report with some of our responses to their

comments and questions.

And the commission in November forwards the program on to council.

But before we go to council, we make a stop at this committee to get any feedback.

and then council approves the work program at the end of this month ideally

as for the evaluation some key accomplishments adopting of an ordinance

removing minimum parking requirements citywide while that was directed by the

general plan it's significant accomplishment for a city our side size

we created a small developer incubator program updated universal design

ordinance and then as well as made a key milestone of updating the vision and

guiding principles for the river district specific plan other projects

we've initiated is the central city specific plan update we've done a lot of

work on extreme heat mitigation planning and partnership with the urban land

institute is Sacramento County and then also we initiated the food literacy

urban farm community action plan which I can get into in more details in a second

Some work that was not anticipated was the additional analysis for the planning

and development code update, co-sponsoring state legislation to extend the timeline

to achieve urban level of flood protection for the city, and then also the

Urban Land Institute technical exchange program which provided required a lot of

background information and collaboration with the county.

Some key programs for the 2026 planning and zoning work program was organized in by citywide policies, housing policy, neighborhood and community planning, climate and equity, and some of the ongoing work we do.

So in terms of citywide policy, a key program this year is rezoning land to implement the 2040 general plan, as well as having our zoning code consistent with the general plan.

So this will involve consolidation of residential zones, incorporating permanent missing middle housing standards, and then allowing more neighborhood commercial uses in our city.

Encourage walkability and the like.

Each year we respond to quite a bit of state legislation.

We have an omnibus ordinance coming to council tonight to incorporate a lot of that work as well as another coming in the fall of this year.

There's just an annual tune-up of our zoning code to keep things streamlined.

As for housing policy, we would like to move ahead with a state law that allows the sale of ADUs in the city.

So really, it's ordinance work, but also consideration of unintended consequences of conveying a piece of property within another piece of property.

But I feel like we're on track with that.

backyard cottages on wheels or ADUs on wheels so in the image on there on the

more of the left side of the image is what we're looking at design

considerations and what we need to do for permanent connections if one someone

were to bring in one of these housing units into their backyard so another

effort to expand the development and use of these affordable attainable dwelling

units and a small developer and computer program we're going to continue that in

partnership with building green hosting city events and supporting these small

developers that help build a to use as well as smaller more attainable housing

developments as for neighborhood community planning continuing to work

on the river district specific plan update she helped to have a public

review draft available in the fall with hearings by the end of the year and also

the central city which is on a similar track with hearings by the end of the year as well.

For climate and equity policy, continuing to explore a reach code in our local building

code that would require a heat pump, air conditioning unit as well as furnace upon replacement.

This would go a lot, very far in addressing carbon emissions in our existing building

stock. Updating our vehicle and bike parking requirements with maximum vehicle parking

requirements along transit corridors, making some adjustments to our bike parking requirements.

And so this should be before the council in the spring. And then to further our EJ environmental

justice goals, particularly access to healthy food, partnering with the Food Literacy Center

create an urban farm community action plan we have an urban farm near leotido

Floyd elementary which so this effort will have a lot of community engagement

a lot of education about improving food access healthy food access as far as

ongoing work we have our planning Academy the 24th class is starting in

this March and the applications our period is still open it closes on

January 23rd so please share with your constituents that opportunity and just

general considerations we do have a little bit more constrained resources

with this structural budget deficit we are working with have the same staff

capacity but certainly from the federal government side of things reduced

assistance with climate policy and other programs that concludes my presentation

I have a lot of the staff leads here available for specific questions if you

have any and I have the work program attached to this presentation if there's a specific thing you

wanted to ask about. Wonderful. For the sale of ADUs do you have an estimated timeline of when

that work might be done for the ordinance changes? I believe by this fall Greta?

I think in the summer. In the summer. Summer. Okay with that do we have any public comment on this item?

Chair I have no speakers on this item. Okay any questions or comments from any colleagues? I see

Council Member Dickinson.

Thank you, Chair.

I just had a couple of questions, Greg.

One having to do with the assessment or evaluation of the missing middle ordinance, and I had

been under the impression that that was going to happen last year.

Then it became early this year.

Now according to this schedule, it's the second and third quarter for the commission of this

year and commissioning council at the end of the year. What's causing this delay?

The biggest factor is as we've continued to get applications for missing metal

housing, some of the lessons learned we've had and we look at what other

communities are doing, we have a pretty rigid bulk control approach on when it

comes to design, scale and massing of these developments and we've brought

I brought Opticos back on board to pivot away from this approach to more of a building typology approach, really.

And also looking at areas of the city.

So we have a maximum floor area ratio of one for most of the city.

But near transit is FAR two.

And so what are the difference in building scale and massing between those two areas in the city?

For FAR one, we're looking at more house scale in those existing neighborhoods, but as we're getting close to transit, what is a more intensive approach?

So we'll be coming to council with our recommendations and analysis on that, but really rethinking that approach has created more of a delay than we anticipated.

But I think it's an important shift and change for the city.

it's involving rezoning over 100,000 parcels likely

and restructuring our residential zones.

So we wanted to take a bit more time

to see if we can do it right, get off on a good start.

Well, I appreciate the additional consideration,

but I don't want to, as a consequence of that,

to end up with a repeat of this problematic

instance we have had in Roeblah.

And so, well, I'm very supportive

of the missing middle ordinance, generally speaking.

And I think what you're speaking to is its application

in different circumstances, but I'd hate to see us get

into a repeat because we're doing that analysis

and in the meantime, something comes in

that is equally or more problematic than what we've been going through this last year.

So I don't know if there's a way of addressing that, but I'd like to at least explore it.

I think when it comes to what we've seen is the adequacy of infrastructure for some of these projects,

looking at specific scenarios and having objective considerations for what is inadequate

it is something that we can do as staff without a code change.

And so I've been having conversations with public works and utilities.

And from this example, the years beacon of intensifying development in an area where

you have a street that's 18 feet wide.

We have findings already in our code for that type of consideration.

And so I think that's something we can address earlier.

Okay, if you think you have the flexibility and the discretion within the ordinance and

the rules you're working with now, that's fine.

If it takes some sort of interim action to address it by the council, then I'd be interested

in that too.

But if you feel you can address it without the necessity of that, that's even better.

I think, yeah, it just requires coordination with the different departments, fire, salt,

and waste as well for us to really be on the same page

and consistent in how we approach this.

Thank you.

One other question, and that has to do with the item

on the work program of adoption of a truck route map

in the 2040 general plan, so I wasn't quite sure about this.

Is this, can you, and I don't know if you're going to get to it or not,

I see it's of medium importance.

Is this simply taking what have been designated as the truck routes

and formalizing it in some fashion consistent with the general plan,

or is it identifying truck routes?

What does it encompass, if you can briefly tell us?

Yeah, it is required by AB 98 that we adopt a truck route map

in our general plan by the end of the year.

So we have to take what has been identified outside of the general plan

and have it formally adopted there.

So that will be completed by the end of the year.

Is that solely an internal exercise or is there a community engagement element of it?

How does that work?

We certainly can.

We will be bringing it forward to council for adoption and going to Plan Design Commission.

Certainly we can engage with the community about the effort.

and I'll just note we are updating our general plan

in a couple years.

We're going to start that update scoping out this year.

So the truck route map alone has,

I don't know how much of a policy impact it has

in terms of regulating land use.

There's further policies I think we would need to identify

in relation to that truck route that could impact land use in the city.

So that could be another level of effort and outreach with not just community

but also business interests that could be part of the general plan.

All right.

Maybe this warrants a little further discussion offline

because we've got some real sensitive issues with respect to truck movements

and truck routes throughout District 2.

so I don't know if this presents an opportunity to address those or this simply reflects what exists.

So maybe we can have some further conversation about that.

Okay.

Thanks, Chair.

All right.

Thank you, Council Member.

And just a quick follow-up.

So what I heard you say on the missing middle ordinance is around some of the challenges of the restrictive nature of bull control.

but I think I remember last year there was kind of a big discussion at this at one of our hearings

and there was some community groups that were organizing to kind of get rid of bull control

and the general plan update.

And what I think I heard from staff at the time was essentially that there was a strong effort to keep that in place.

Is that changing?

It is.

In order to have the interim ordinance and have something in our zoning code in the interim,

to implement missing metal, we needed an objective standard.

Because under state law, to regulate housing, you need clear objective standards that everybody understands.

Bull control is that clear standard.

So what we would like to do is pivot away, but with a different set of standards that are more based off of building typology versus just an envelope that you can build within.

And more context-sensitive design standards.

but all of these are predictable for the community and development.

Okay. Well, that makes a lot of sense to me, and you know I support that.

So, thank you.

So, with that, does this require a vote?

Do I have a motion on this item?

So moved.

Do I have a second?

And a second.

Motion and a second.

All those in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed or abstained?

That passes unanimously.

Thank you.

Okay.

Moving on.

review and approval of the city's state and federal legislative platform.

It's your moment to shine.

Thank you.

Excuse me.

Consuelo Hernandez, director of governmental affairs.

I'm pleased to present today a draft of the city's 2026 state and federal legislative,

state and federal legislative platform.

also have our state lobbyist here ross buckley and between the two of us we'd like to provide

a review of 2025 and a preview of what we're seeing in 2026 so kind of makes sense to me that

we do that first um and then go from there so we're gonna be tag teaming i'm the federal person

he is the state person ross is the state person i'll start off um with just a review of 2025 what

we saw at the federal level, I will try to keep this as succinct as possible.

The city's primary focus in 2025 was maintaining funding for our critical programs or various

threats to that funding.

I think we've been successful having joined lawsuits and having some of the proposals

working their way through and not ultimately becoming, going into effect.

we did not have a budget pass in 50 in fiscal year 25 as you know it was a continuing resolution

we had earmarks submitted those did not make it through the one big thing I will say in the

federal level that happened was the passage of hr1 that's the one big beautiful bill key for us

in there was the expansion of low income housing tax credits as well as the reauthorization of

opportunity zones. We currently have opportunity zones in Sacramento and we'll be working to make

sure that we're part of the reauthorization. So that's kind of it at the federal level,

not much legislative activity, lots of activity in general. So I'll hand it over to Ross for the

state. Thanks Consuelo. Good morning. Thanks for allowing me to present here. Unlike maybe the

federal level, the state had a lot of legislative activity this past year. And I think like Consuelo

I'll start with a kind of a recap of 2025 and then provide a glimpse of what we expect for 2026 and then kind of bring it back on how all this affects the city of Sacramento.

So first, to my point of there being a lot of legislative activity in the state of California, a total of 2,350 bills were introduced in the year of 2025.

So a lot of bills, notably 1,250 of those bills were introduced within four days of the introduction deadline, which I know many of you know that's not unusual.

It's just kind of the nature of the business, but a lot of last minute bill ideas were coming

before the introduction deadline.

So a lot to deal with.

As you know, those get amended late in the session.

So it feels like we're constantly dealing with new bills every month or every week.

As a reminder, this last year, both the Senate and the Assembly both agreed to lower the

bill limits that an author could carry to 35 bills for the two-year session.

So we expect a much lower bill count this upcoming year because a lot of legislators introduced still 20, 25 bills in the first year.

Now there's still room to work on some of those bills under the two-year process.

But overall, we expect a slightly lighter amount of bills coming into this year.

You know, I won't pause because when you look at last year,

you sometimes define what happens in Sacramento by what crisis is happening or what's the big news that's happening.

And it was just last week that we had the one-year anniversary of the LA, Southern California wildfires,

which was dominating a lot of the conversations in the early part of last year,

whether it be funding or rebuilding or whatnot.

But also the conversation was all around affordability and how do we tackle the affordability issue in California.

So that was really what defined the early part of our session.

You know, as we moved into kind of summer months, we talked a lot about the budget process.

but towards the end of the year really two things kind of dominated the end of session.

One was the redistricting effort for California and then the second one was the cap and trade

or cap and invest which we call it now which really took up kind of the last couple weeks of session in earnest.

I would say that that was probably the most significant legislation that was passed at the end of last year.

It extended the cap and trade program through 2045.

It delivers the largest electricity bill refunds in decades.

And the reason why we did this is it was set to expire in 2030,

but the auction revenues were declining and there was uncertainty about the extension of the program.

So the legislature felt needed, and the governor, to extend the program to kind of provide that certainty

in the hopes that, you know, we start to see those auctions turn around and the program, you know, fully strengthened.

At the – what I have never seen in the 16 years I've been working here,

we actually extended the deadline for session at the end to make sure we could complete that deal.

Um, we, it was set to adjourn on Friday at midnight.

Uh, they went to about one to 2 AM on Friday and then came back bright and

early, I believe at 9 AM.

So they only got a few hours of rest before they come back.

But then they did a small package of bills on Saturday morning, which

actually in interesting enough, affected when the governor could sign.

The governor got an extra day to sign or veto bills, uh, last year.

Uh, looking at kind of his actions last year, he got sent a toll of 917 bills.

and signed 794 of those bills, vetoing only 123.

His historical veto rate was around 14%.

That was a little less, 13.4%.

So we saw slightly less vetoes from him this last year.

On the budget side last year,

obviously we were facing another budget deficit,

about $12 billion.

This was largely driven by what the governor dubbed

as the Trump slump,

which he predicted a $16 billion budget downturn.

over a several year period.

So this legislature worked hard to balance the budget.

Kind of as we turn the calendar to 2026

and what we're looking at as they come back,

the legislature obviously returned last week.

They are jumping right into business.

They have what are called the two year bill schedule.

So they're having, I think there's seven

or eight committee hearings happening as we speak right now

as they deal with bills that need to get out of their own house

which they're introduced last year

before they kind of get back to regular business.

This year, February 20th is the last state to introduce new bills for the upcoming session.

So we expect a lot more bills to reduce to the next month here.

And then kind of lastly, on 2026, the governor had his last final state of the state address

where he actually presented to the legislature for the first time since 2020.

And then he had his, on Friday of last week, he had his department finance director present his proposed state budget.

Now there was a lot of headlines coming out last Friday.

I think kind of the top line numbers, the governor had previewed in his state of the state that the state had 42 billion more revenues than what we're expecting.

However, once we kind of dig into those numbers, the state still is facing about $2.9 billion budget deficit.

And there are some, the legislative office today just put out a report about how they view the deficit being much larger.

In November, they said the deficit was closer to $18 billion.

And again, that's not unusual for the LA on Department of Finance to use different numbers.

That's part of the process we use, but there is quite a bit of discrepancy this year.

Kind of bring it back to Sacramento and the work that we were able to do.

This was another successful year for the city of Sacramento.

This committee's leadership, along with Mr. Hernandez,

we were able to work on a number of issues, including, you know, the HAP dollars,

the 500 million last year.

It's proposed for another $500 million in the governor's budget this year.

when it was there were zero dollars when we started last year proposed in the state budget.

We were also able to work on the ice tree bridge with the city of West Sac and some of our partners

to get funding for that. The city also sponsored Senate bill 639 which allows permitting to continue

where the flood work is being done. It was an important bill that Senator Ashby carried for the city.

Another bill SB 720 which we actively supported to help kind of our traffic safety issues

in the city and allowing red light cameras to continue

and kind of re-envisioning that program.

We also had a number of bills or budget wins,

$350 million in healthy rivers and landscapes,

$183.2 million for Prop 4 funding for water quality,

safe drinking water, tribal infrastructure,

and $28 million Prop 4 allocations for groundwater,

groundwater recharge and in-stream flow projects.

So a lot of good wins on the budget side.

Looking forward to this next year.

I know that we're already talking about some legislation around retired annuitants

and working with our public safety friends on that front.

And obviously we are looking at this new budget shortfall

and some of the challenges and opportunities that will present.

And kind of lastly for 2026, right before the holidays broke,

it was announced that Senate Pro Tem Monique Lamone

was appointing our very own Senator Ashby as the majority leader of the Senate.

So with her new role, that will provide some more opportunities for the city of Sacramento as we move forward.

That concludes my verbal report and happy to answer any questions.

Thank you.

Thank you so much.

And I can wrap up with a preview of what we're seeing on the federal level very quickly.

As Ross mentioned, redistricting was a big thing.

If it holds up in the courts, we will have a third House member, which should be interesting.

We have 17 days until the current government funding expires,

so Congress needs to either pass the remaining appropriation bills

or we get another continuing resolution.

And it looks like there could be some agreements on most of the bills.

State and foreign operations, the homeland security,

look like they could be a sticking point.

They're becoming much more politicized,

so there could be less of a chance to get an agreement.

If they are able to wrap up the budget, we assume that fiscal year 27 is going to start in earnest.

A couple big things that we expect to see, the surface transportation reauthorization process is going to begin.

The current authorization expires September 30th of this year, and that was the IIJA, the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act.

the house chair of transportation and infrastructure has made it clear that bless you the

next surface transportation bill will focus more on traditional forms of transportation those your

roads your bridges your highways look for less funding for bike ped sort of improvements

let's see housing we've had a couple bipartisan bills released in the Senate and in the House

they're looking to do everything you know streamlining federal reviews of interest to us

incentivizing local governments to address barriers to housing development increasing

veterans access to federal housing programs the goal is for the Senate and the House to

come together to craft a comprehensive bill this year.

I know that there was a lot of concern about proposed changes to the continuum of care funding,

primarily the part that would have reduced the amount of funds that could be used for permanent supportive housing.

That seems to have gone by the wayside for the moment.

We're operating under previous rules.

so we'll see if the administration tries to move forward with the regular process of

implementing those changes a couple other quick things reauthorization of the epa

clean water and drinking water state revolving funds it's unlikely that when this is reauthorized

that the funding will be as high as it was before there are plans to introduce and pass the 2026

WERDA Water Resources Development Act.

And we're looking at FEMA reform.

And as always, my personal favorites,

looking at the earmarks that should be submitted this year

with the hopes of getting them included

in the fiscal year 27 budget.

So if you have any questions for me and Ross on the update,

if not, I'm happy to move

to the actual legislative platform item.

Yeah, let's take questions really quick.

I just have one quick one on the dollars at the state level.

I know that obviously thank you for your work last year to get us from zero to where we are now.

But we do know that, you know, obviously $500 million is less than a billion.

And we're hoping to get that fully funded amount.

So just curious about your thoughts on is that a possible path forward?

Or do we think that we're going to continue to see these cuts happening to have year over year?

And should we be planning for that?

Yeah.

So I think first, right, $500 million last year, $500 million this year.

while it's funding round seven at that kind of traditional level.

I think the governor and legislature have been very clear that they need to see,

and he even said it in his presentation,

we need to see accountability measures and we need to see progress.

And that has been one of the things that they've really focused on

and trying to show and demonstrate that, hey,

we keep sending a lot of money to the cities and counties.

What is the progress?

So I think that that's going to be a continued conversation this year is what does those metrics and what did those oversight issues look like before they even distribute those dollars.

So I think that's going to be the most important conversation this year.

While I do think we can still get additional revenue for the HAP program because I think it's a worthwhile program.

There's extra scrutiny this year on how it's spent.

I do find it ironic that, you know, he's asking for progress while touting the progress of the reduction of homelessness in the state.

But that's just my opinion.

So moving on, Councilman Dickinson.

Thanks, Chair.

I also had made a note about the HAP funding,

and hopefully there's a coalition that's continuing in place

to advocate for at least getting back to a billion dollars

for round six on HAP funding and looking at round seven.

But I think that's got to be an area of emphasis.

What I had made a note of, and looking at the platform,

I didn't actually see, so let me know if I missed it, I didn't see a reference to advocating for HAP funding or for other housing funding, including it would be great to see an increase in tax credits at the state level.

I think they've been running around $500 million annually.

That is an essential element of financing for affordable housing, as you know.

So we could certainly do a lot more if the tax credits were increased.

So as I say, I just didn't see those things reflected specifically in the platform.

And did I miss them?

No, no, you didn't miss them.

This is a transition over to the platform.

Under the housing opportunities for every level of income, a commitment to reducing homelessness,

we don't list every single specific issue that we may have.

So HAP would be covered under efforts to address homelessness, to increase funding.

Let's see.

I mean, that category looked more programmatic than financial to me in looking at the bullets.

But, you know, and I understand you could say it's within the penumbra of those items.

I think the financial side on housing at the state level is so important that I would tend to call it out.

Okay.

So there is an item increasing funding for affordable housing and expansion of the low-income housing tax credit and other funding mechanisms.

Yes.

So I did miss that.

So no worries.

Yeah.

And just so you know, the goal isn't to – we kind of straddle the line between having it be broad enough but not so broad.

Understood.

So we don't – yeah.

Yeah. No, we've...

Understood. And I don't want to fence us in, certainly unnecessarily. As I said, I just think some of these things are so significant that they merit individually being identified.

The other, in a related vein, I'd say, historic development tax credits, which were supposed to be funded for, as I've understood, four years, were only funded for one.

There were two grants made to projects in the Bay Area, so nothing here or anywhere else in the state, for that matter, got them.

and they have not been funded in subsequent years,

including, I think, last year.

So that's another one that makes sense to me

to try to advocate for,

because we have a number of historic properties

that are capable of adaptive reuse,

but they're gonna need funding, help,

and tax credits are a huge part of any package of funding

that people can put together.

So I would simply ask that we look at including that as well.

The other thing that it's not so much on the legislative side,

it's more on the administrative side, admittedly,

but you mentioned a couple of instances of Prop 4 funding.

We've got additional categories of Prop 4 funding

that should be coming up this year for parks, for farmers markets, for things like this,

this year or next year, I would think.

So are we tracking that?

Are we identifying opportunities for our operating departments and to put in grant applications?

How does that function?

Yes, we are tracking that.

The legislature, I think in three separate actions last year, allocated about, I believe,

it was $3.5 billion of the $10 billion overall thing.

thing and then again our staff over here has been great at notifying and being aware of those

issues obviously we've been advocating legislature for our our local projects here to see priority

But we are that's something we are tracking quite closely. Okay. That's that's great

I would just add I know that I believe it was CNRA already had a webinar when it was passed we had

staff from various departments participating so whenever those opportunities arise either the they make me aware

I make them aware we all make sure that we're tracking so we can take advantage of whatever

opportunities there are. Thank you for that because there's not a lot of money out there

to be had and this is one source that can really help if we can get a portion of it for a number

of critical projects throughout the city. Any source of funding is, and you know your time in

legislature, everyone jumps on any opportunity so it's something we've been making sure that

the city of Sacramento and our region has a fair shot at,

one, and then two, as I talked about

in the two-year bill process,

we've already been in support of a bill

to kind of help expedite that funding getting out.

Already even yesterday it was up in committee,

so we're kind of attacking it from both ends.

Good, great.

My last request, and actually this really came more

in relation to the correspondence item

on the consent killer, but could you give us

just a summary, not the moment,

just after this meeting at some point

in the next couple, three days, whatever,

a list of the two-year bills that you're still following,

tracking and both tracking and advocating on?

Of course.

Yeah, I'd be happy to.

Okay.

Great.

Thanks.

Thank you.

Great comments.

So with that, I know we're going to move to public comment next,

but I just wanted to say I know you're very busy.

Thank you, Ross, for coming to City Hall and for providing an update.

I know it's very, very busy over there.

There's a ton going on.

Thank you for representing the city of Sacramento's interests.

Always please go get us a lot more money.

So we'll let you go.

Bearing any other questions.

Thank you for being here.

Thanks so much.

Appreciate it.

Any public comment on this item?

I have two speakers on this item.

Lambert and Chris Logsdon.

Welcome Lambert.

Welcome back.

This is actually the first time I've ever been to this commission.

I've been to a lot of commissions.

Probably the only one who can beat me is Minty Cuppy because I have been to a lot of meetings.

And I'm glad I came because my family and also the millennials that helped me,

they called me last night and said I had to come today.

And I said, why today?

because there's a millennial that's the chair.

I didn't know that.

And so that's great because it'll give the rostrum

a different perspective,

like what Mr. Dickerson just did with the people who presented it.

You need somebody like that who can ask questions

that they didn't talk about,

and then he made them realize there is more money available.

When you have a structural deficit, I run a business.

I cannot go to my family and talk about any kind of deficit as the CEO.

They won't tolerate that.

Now, the fact that I'm the founder, they can't throw me away, but that's true.

You must have sound fiscal responsibility.

What Mr. Dickerson was talking about will help you.

That should not have not been in the platform.

I haven't looked at it.

I'll study it when I get time.

And whenever I hear staff say they work really hard and all of that, that's one thing.

But you're being paid to work.

So just get the job done, and then you'll get the reviews and compliments you deserve.

Now the millennials gave me this to give to city council or vice or chair.

Maple.

And this is from them to you.

And I told him I would give it to you.

So this.

Thank you, Mr. Davis.

I also think you'll be pleased to know that there's actually three of us millennials on the city council.

So, you know, the millennial, the millennial.

But I think the next, you know, you need to get in with Gen Z.

There's some of them in the audience here.

They know what they're talking about.

Thank you.

As long as cheesecake's involved, I'm not a socialite.

Chris?

Welcome.

I'm a millennial, too, actually.

So we're here.

Good morning.

Good morning.

Those who don't know, Chris Larson, policy manager at the Anti-Recidivism Coalition, ARC.

I'm in the Sacramento office.

That's my hat right now.

I'm going to step out and go to lunch and then to put on another hat and come back and give some other comments in a little while.

But I just wanted to speak on item five.

This will be quick.

So really, you know, the platform that you just discussed, it shapes what Sacramento advocates for on housing, behavioral health, workforce access, safety net funding, all of these things, all of which directly affect reentry outcomes.

And by reentry, I mean those who are reentering our communities after incarceration, 90% of whom, 90% of the people who are in prison and jails right now will be coming home.

So I just like to encourage you and we'd like to encourage the city to ensure that its priority supports stability and opportunity for people who are returning home from incarceration.

And to lift that up in the policy that you support at the state level and at the federal level.

And of course here locally as well.

And thank you for your time.

Thank you.

I have no more speakers.

Okay.

So I'll bring it back to the committee for additional.

Thank you, Chair.

I support the proposal as the platform is drafted.

Two things I want to highlight very briefly.

For both our planning staff and legislative advocates,

anything that we can do to streamline housing,

CEQA reform, building code reform, anything on that space,

we need to push aggressively on.

And then this year is off to a rough start

on a lot of metrics,

including our vehicle safety metrics.

If there's anything we can do to accelerate admission

into the automated speed enforcement pilot program,

I went to San Francisco over the holidays,

saw how effective that was there.

I think that would be a great addition

to the sort of quiver of opportunities

that we have for enforcement.

With that, I'll move the proposal as drafted.

Dickinson.

Well, I'll second the motion.

I just want to add a quick cautionary note on changes to CEQA and streamlining.

There can be unintended consequences.

So I would just offer a thought that maybe not push full speed ahead on anything that comes up,

but with due deliberation and consideration from my point of view.

So I have a couple of specific things.

One, I actually agree with Councilmember Dickinson on,

I know that obviously our housing opportunities

and homelessness, reducing and ending homelessness

has a lot of buckets and includes the tax credits

and CalAIM.

I do think there might be value

to calling out HAT specifically.

It's implied.

We know that we're doing it.

We know that we're part of a bigger coalition

that's pushing for that.

But just being really clear to the public

that this is a priority for us

and we're continuing to fight for it,

because we are, I think that would be really helpful.

The other thing under that same big bucket

is we have the exploration of a shared governance model

for local homelessness efforts.

I'm not sure if this was in the last one or not,

but I know that there are at least five members

of this council that have called out specifically

interest in a joint powers authority.

And so I would be interested in including that

as an option here.

So something like shared governance,

including the possibility of JPA,

because I know there's also others

that have different opinions on that.

So I don't want to be exclusive,

but I think it would be worth sharing

just because I know there are at least a majority

of the city council that has expressed interest in that.

And so with that, those are my only two suggestions.

I don't know, do you need us to include that in the motion

or can you get that as direction?

I can give it as direction.

I make the changes before they go to council.

Okay, great.

And then councilman Jennings, any comments from you?

Okay, with that, we have a motion and the second,

I think I heard a second.

All those in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

as you're saying, it passes unanimously.

And thank you very much for the very thorough report.

I was thrilled to hear from Ross,

and I'm just always blown away when I read through our platform

and realize just how much we're working on at the federal level

and the state level every day, so thank you.

Okay.

We are going to move on now to item number six,

amending Sacramento City Code related to the number of swine,

dogs, and cats per dwelling unit.

Good morning, council members.

So this is a slight change to our current code.

specifically pertains to the number of dogs residents can own.

Currently, you can only own three dogs in the city of Sacramento.

As we all know, we have a lot of pet lovers in Sacramento.

We also have a lot of pet lovers that are rule-abiders,

and so they won't get that fourth dog.

They won't adopt that fourth dog because they don't want to get a citation

if they have too many animals.

And so this was actually brought up in the Animal Well-Being Commission.

It's something that they supported.

It is the same as the county, and there's always been some confusion.

In the county, you can have seven cats and four dogs.

In the city, you can have seven cats and three dogs.

There is one slight difference in ours.

While many cities and counties have gone away

with their mandatory spay and neuter,

because as many of us know,

there is a shortage of veterinarian services,

especially to our lower income residents.

And so what we wanted to do is make sure

that we encourage people to adopt a fourth animal

or rescue a fourth animal,

but that we do want to require them to be spayed or neutered.

Because if you can afford to have four animals,

we think that you could probably afford to go ahead and afford to get them spayed and neutered.

The second part is, as I mentioned, rescuing and sheltering.

Again, we have a lot of law-abiding, rule-following community members

that come to shelters and rescues, and they would love to get that fourth dog,

but they won't because the organization is monitoring

how many animals that they already have currently licensed.

And so that is another plus.

So we're not doing a sweeping across the board

mandatory spay and neuter,

but putting a little bit of effort into making sure

that we're getting to the right place,

especially until we can get to a point

where we don't have this lack of access

to affordable spay and neuter care.

And as a byproduct, the more animals,

more dogs that are in homes,

that's a little bit more licensing revenue for the shelter.

And we're already seeing a drastic increase

in licensing compliance.

And so this is just one more thing

that will help the shelter,

especially during the budget time right now.

I did receive one constituent comment

or question regarding this with basically the question of,

you know, why not align with the county's language

on licensed pet versus the spay and neuter.

I hear you say that we want to encourage that.

But they're saying that this could be an issue potentially

if they have an animal that is exempted from that

for one reason or another.

So just curious if you can speak a little bit

to that concern.

So there is a separate code that addresses licensing

so that they're still required to license their pet

because they would have to provide us proof

of spay and neuter and then at that time

would also have to provide us a lot. Okay. So you're saying it wouldn't be a concern? Correct.

Okay. Okay. That's my question. Any initial questions before we go to public comment?

Okay. Do we have any public comment on this item? I have one speaker, Dia Good.

All right. Dia, the one that sent... I have your email in front of me.

And there is a concern. Good morning. There is what appears to be an inadvertent error

in the drafting of this proposal.

First, this language never went before the commission

for review or public comment.

Just the concept was discussed.

And the only way it aligns with the county ordinance

is by increasing the number of permitted dogs

from three to four.

The county ordinance does not include

the spay and neuter clause,

and neither did the city's prior version of the ordinance.

And I contacted the county this morning to double check.

So spay and neuter is something that they added.

So let me explain. All dogs in the city and county have to be licensed but all dogs are not required to be altered.

Both city and county provide for the licensure of unaltered dogs clearly stating the dogs that are too old or sick or show dogs after providing specific documentation can receive an exemption and an unaltered license.

If this language is approved as is, you will be prohibiting two groups of dog owners with legally licensed pets from obtaining another dog without any rationale.

The shelter states that they can override the spay and neuter requirement as set forth, but in reality, they have no authority to do so.

And they can't waive the ordinance requirements.

But there's a simple solution, and that's just to add after Section B and the words spay and neuter, a comma in the language, quote, unless exempt in 9.44.490, which is the city's licensing ordinance.

So that's my request for your consideration.

The ordinance is what it says it is.

The shelter can't interpret it the way they would like to.

the language should just be cleaned up. Thank you. Chair, I have no more speakers.

Okay, so I'll call you back up. Thank you. So hearing now from Ms. Good, do you think there's value in her suggestion adding subsection B?

Because I'm hearing that this might be a concern if someone adopts a pet and let's say they're too old to go through spay and neuter, that that could be a challenge under the current language?

Yeah, so when somebody has, so one, no, it would not be a, it's not a huge deal to add that.

But second, we do get, occasionally we do get the waivers from the veterinarians because the animal is too old or it has a health condition.

We regularly have pets at our shelter that our veterinarians will approve an adoption without the animal being altered because, again, it's too old.

It has an underlying health condition.

So it's typically not an issue.

Veterinarians, especially in private practice and shelters,

they're not going to put their license on the line asking for a waiver for an

animal that has no underlying health issues that would not require it to be

spayed or neutered.

Okay.

Okay.

So what I'm hearing is that, you know,

that adding this language in could, you know,

it's not going to negatively impact what you're trying to accomplish here.

And it sounds like it can add in some additional clarity to the public and to

our vets. So I personally support that. With that, I'll move it on to Council Member Pelletibom.

Thanks, Chair. Phil, is there any time emergency on this?

No, just that, you know, we have a lot of animals on our shelter, and if we can get people that come

in and adopt another dog, we would encourage that, and likewise at other shelters as well.

Then my recommendation would be to refer this back to the Animal Welfare Commission

and have them give some input, see if they can't help us craft a finer version of this

before we bring it back.

Is that a motion?

There you go.

Okay.

Any comments or second?

Yeah, if it is a motion, I'll second it as well.

I think that's very important that we look at our commissions in order to be able to

hear from them exactly what they think is in the best interest of all.

So.

Okay.

Any other comments from you, Councillor Jennings?

No, I, I, this is a very interesting one.

I'm, I'm, I'm hearing very clearly the opportunity to make sure that we meet everybody's needs

and to not get in the way of their love of animals.

And I don't want to do that.

I want to make sure that we do what's in the best interest of the animals and the people

who take care of the animals.

Yes, and if I had room in my house,

I certainly would have four dogs

because I am a dog lover.

So I think this is a great thing.

And I'm also a good governance nerd.

So whenever we can align ourselves

with our peer jurisdictions at the state,

it's always a good thing

because it creates consistency for the public

to know what to expect.

So I think this is a great thing.

But I do agree.

I think we have an animal well-being commission

and a lot of really smart people in there

that can help advise us.

So let's hear from them.

and then we'll come back.

In your motion, will that come back to Law and Ledge

or will that come to the City Council?

Yeah, I don't think we need to hear it here again

unless this group feels differently.

I think going straight to the Council will be fine.

All right.

And you're good at that as a seconder?

We'll support that.

All those in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed or abstained?

That passes unanimously.

Thank you.

All right.

We are moving on to Item 7,

Council member proposal for committee consideration establishing limitations on the number of homeless shelter beds and social service providers within the River District and with that I will pass it to Council member Plucky bomb.

Thanks chair. So when I started this job about a year ago, I immediately became aware that the city was out of compliance with its ordinance that had been on the books for decades. We were sent to that ordinance almost a year ago.

So this is an iteration of that ordinance

that I promised to bring back

when we pulled the old one last year.

So the intent of this ordinance

is to take what had been on the books for decades,

extend the cap to all of the shelter beds

that are currently established,

and also provide capacity for the proposed shelter

on Bannon Street for an additional 100 beds.

So if the correct number is 526,

and I don't think it is.

It would be 626 would be the actual proposed cap.

So the intent here is not to thwart any proposal

that's currently coming forward

or to negatively impact any of the existing uses

that are conducted within the River District.

It is to just establish sort of a boundary

for over concentration of this specific use.

with that or with the chair's permission

I'll invite Devin up from the

River District to

give any additional comments about

what's happening there and I expect

we're going to have some yep we got

quite a few other comments as well

Devin

yes thank you I'm Devin

Strucker executive director of the River District

I'm also a resident of the district

as well so I want to

thank council member Plucky Baum for bringing

this forward as he mentioned you know

for 35 years we had a similar resolution in place.

And when it was rescinded last year,

we didn't receive any proper notice or process,

despite the fact that we're already carrying

a disproportionate share of the city's shelter beds

and social services.

And today that imbalance is even more severe

than it was back in 1989

when the initial resolution was passed.

District four does have the highest number

of shelter beds in Sacramento,

and the River District has the highest concentration

within District 4, over 500 existing beds

with more being added, as you mentioned.

At the same time, we have among the lowest concentration

of housing on offer, so most people experiencing homelessness

here in the River District did not originate

in the neighborhood, they came from other parts

of the city and region.

So continuing to add beds here instead of distributing

services citywide is not equitable nor sustainable.

The River District is less than two square miles, yet it has become Sacramento's default drop-off point for services, shelters, for people exiting institutions.

This over-concentration has real consequences.

Businesses spend enormous amounts of money on security.

Many have already left.

Others struggle to attract customers, tenants, or investment.

The district's reputation makes lower-intensity commercial and residential uses difficult to support.

We're told over and over when we reach out to the city for support that there aren't enough resources.

Importantly, this is not an argument against helping unhoused neighbors.

It's an argument for fairness and effectiveness.

The River District also contains prime opportunities for developing housing of all types.

Saturating the area further with shelters or sanctioned camps works directly against the city's housing production and neighborhood revitalization goals.

This ordinance does not eliminate services.

It simply asks that responsibility be shared across all districts rather than concentrated in one small neighborhood that has already done more than its fair share.

The River District is at a crossroads.

Please approve this ordinance and give it a real chance to thrive.

Thank you.

Okay.

Any other?

Okay.

So with that, why don't we go first to public comment?

Thank you, Chair.

I have five speakers.

Vershank,

Angela Hassel,

Greta Lisson,

Skylar Henry,

then Melody Hitt.

Vershank?

Good afternoon, everyone.

My name is Vershank.

I'm a lead at Sacramento Street Medicine.

So we provide medical care to the encampments of many of the unhoused

residents throughout the River District.

And I want to share my perspective on the proposal to limit homeless shelter beds and service providers in the district.

I can empathize with the concerns of like thefts and a stigma surrounding the district because I think that people deserve to live in safe and clean communities that can thrive.

But my experience in the field actually leads me to believe that preventing the expansion of housing and social services will only exacerbate these issues in the region.

we have some real-time data from like an organization called Sacramento steps

forward that shows that the number of like homeless individuals in the city is

consistently increasing and a consistently increased throughout 2025

projecting an increased need for services as the years go on and so any

sort of cap on the expansion would begin to overwhelm the existing resources in

the district and prevent unhoused individuals from using them and in my

experience this kind of heightens the amount of violence and like blight that

worsens many of the concerns that the city's trying to remedy right now.

There's an amicus curiae brief that was submitted by the social scientists leading

up to Grants Pass versus Johnson that shows that separating unhoused

individuals from social services increases violence and something called

survival crime which includes petty theft and trespassing and the concentration of

of people experiencing homelessness is not caused

by the presence of services, but rather it's the inverse.

Folks were pushed to the River District in the 50s

and the 60s by the city, which resulted in the establishment

of these programs in the district to provide aid.

And so if the goal is to improve safety

and restore our dignity in the district,

the evidence points to expanding the amount

of social services in other districts

to balance the distribution of social services,

not capping the expansion within the district.

So I urge the council to reconsider the ordinance

and instead opt for the data driven approach.

Thank you for your comments.

Your time is complete.

Our next speaker is Angela, then Greta.

Welcome.

Afternoon.

I'm Angela Hassel.

I'm the executive director of Sacramento Loaves and Fishes,

one of the key providers in the River District.

And we oppose this proposal and we urge this committee

to pass a motion denying the proposal request.

Proposal rests on the fact that the River District

has a significantly higher homeless population

than other districts and we know this is true,

but it's also a political and a historical reality

dating back to the 50s and 60s

as folks living on the streets are pushed out of downtown

and out of Old Sacramento

into what is now District 4 and the River District.

It's a situation the city created long ago

and nearly all of us service providers

that exist in the district,

we are there because this is where the people

we serve were forced to live.

Capping shelter beds and limiting any expansion

of services doesn't do anything to solve homelessness.

It merely pushes the problem back into other districts

while leaving room for further criminalization

of poverty and homelessness.

Displacing people with misguided policy

like this proposal is not a solution,

just like sweeps are not a solution.

We already know our guests at Loaves and Fishes

don't travel very far for services.

For example, folks served by the churches of Midtown Heart

regularly report that Loaves and Fishes is too far

for them to travel for a meal.

It's roughly one or two miles,

between one and two miles away.

By limiting services in the district,

this proposal cuts people off

from any potential life saving services

and leaves them to suffer further.

If they don't occupy one of the current 526,

maybe 626 existing beds,

they're left at the risk

of the city's harmful enforcement practices.

Without services, people quite literally

will continue to die on the streets,

and they already are.

Proposals like this have been brought up to the council before and not always been successful.

So let's spend our energy and our taxpayer dollars on real solutions like deeply affordable permanent housing

and services that keep people alive and safe until that housing can come available for them.

Again, I urge you to utilize option five and deny this proposal request.

Thank you.

Next speaker is Greta, then Skyler.

Well, good morning.

My name is Greta Lachin, and I'm a River District Board member.

My husband and I also own property and is a business on the east end of the district

on Dreher Street since 1990.

We've been in the district for a very long time.

We know there is a pressing need for solutions to homelessness, but our district has suffered

disproportionately from the effects.

We have over 500 beds concentrated in our 1.25 square mile district.

You can walk from one end of the district to the other.

That is more than any other council district.

And some districts have none.

You all know, I'm sure, that we repealed our one protection that we had,

a resolution authored in 1989,

and that was meant to protect us from the expansion of services.

and adding additional services.

And that resolution was violated over many years.

As a result, the River District has really suffered.

Businesses have left, many businesses have left,

especially in the East End.

And our streets, some of them have become no man's land.

So I'm asking you today to propose,

to support Council Member Plucky Baum's proposal

in the name of fair distribution of these services

from one end of the city to the other.

And I understand that there are some districts

that are over-concentrated already,

other than ours, District 2, for example.

And I support limiting the district's burdens.

So there are many districts that can use more of the homeless.

Thank you.

Skyler Henry, then Melody Hitt.

Welcome back.

Morning, everyone.

I want to start by saying that I understand.

I mean, I think I understand probably better than most people in this room

what it's like to take those calls and get those emails every day.

So I totally get it.

And I don't even disagree with the fact that there is a certain inequity

to the amount of impact that it has in that area of the city.

the part where I disagree is that we are introducing an ordinance worded around what we're not willing to do about it versus what we are willing to do about it.

And so I would say I agree with you.

I think that we should have shelter options and service options in every district of the city.

Those things should be expanded.

And if you were introducing an ordinance around that, I would be totally behind it.

But the truth is that just talking about, well, this is what we're not willing to do is not an answer.

It makes the problem worse.

And it's like folks are saying, it's just going to make things harder for people who already have it really hard.

So I understand.

And, you know, I understand what Devin's saying.

Like, I get it.

But the answer isn't to say, well, we're not going to do these things.

The answer is to talk to your colleagues and find ways that you can relieve the burden by handing it off to or like working with not handing it off, but working with your coworkers to find ways, create opportunities for people to go that aren't just in the River District.

Melody is our final speaker on this item.

Welcome.

Thank you very much.

My name is Melody Hitt, and no, I'm not an actress or a singer or ever was.

I have a background in my legal degrees.

I am a California certified paralegal.

I have a bachelor's in organizational leadership and development.

I have a master's in education, ABD, PhD in psychology.

Before I had my current position as the business administrator for the Sub-Asian Army,

I was able to move up here in 2018 due to the Thomas fire taking my home.

I understand homelessness.

I understand the impact it has.

I understand the economical trials and tribulations that it has not only on city funding, but local organizational funding.

And I understand that the calls that we get at midnight, that somebody needs a bed, the calls that we get when a child is hungry.

I understand all of that.

And the one thing I totally believe in today is collaboration.

I do not believe that there should be any borders between a government administration

and the nonprofits that totally dedicate their lives to housing and homeless and their communities.

What I do agree with is that, yes, I believe that this motion should not be passed,

and there should be more collaboration at the local level to those with boots on the ground,

not just the administrators, but to the case managers, the program administrators.

And even though the River District is a hub and a very concentrated area of homelessness,

and those resources do get tapered out very thin, I suggest that possibly you reach out again,

collaborate, and get the data sets from those that are in the River District so they can have the feedback needed

in order to pass a motion and a plan that everybody can agree on and help those in the community.

Thank you very much for your time.

Here I have no more speakers.

All right. Thank you.

Thank you, Chair, I'll be quick.

First of all, I just wanna apologize to everyone,

especially the folks in the River District.

I should have last year amended the existing ordinance

to raise the cap so that we could have stayed in compliance.

I think we would be having a much different conversation.

I think it would certainly feel different

to be talking about raising the cap

and allowing for additional services in the district,

which is functionally what we're doing.

Because we are also reintroducing the ordinance

this this moment i know it feels like we're imposing some new restriction but what happened

last year was you know we moved fast uh dropped the old ordinance just so that we didn't have that

that liability risk and are now bringing this revised version back uh two quick points and

then i'll i'll turn it over um one you know we've been having a lot of discussion about

uh affordable housing and and in particular uh mixed income communities one of our goals as a

city is to provide, wherever possible, the greatest diversity of incomes in a community.

So, you know, the history of sort of corralling folks into the River District, I think, is

both shameful and not something we want to continue to replicate. That is part of the

intent of this ordinance is to create some downward pressure on the River District that

will create some upward pressure in other places in the city for that same use. And

the second point is industrial lands. The, you know, Pell Avenue, Power Inn, and the

River District are some of the last industrial spaces that we have left in the city.

And as we're looking for opportunities to invest, as we're looking for places for economic growth and development,

the things that will fund exactly the kind of housing that we need,

those are the kinds of land uses that I think we need to be extra sensitive about, you know,

what are compatible types of adjacent uses.

So with those two thoughts about mixed income communities and the need to preserve industrial lands, I'll turn over.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you.

I have a quick question.

I see, yeah, I see, Tim, that you're here.

Yeah, do you have a few comments?

Just quickly, yeah.

Okay, and then I have a quick question for you, but I'll wait.

You might actually answer it with your comments.

Sure.

Good afternoon, committee members.

Tim Swanson, assistant director of the Department of Community Response.

I appreciate the conversation that's occurring, and objectively, I think we all agree that there's a high impact that's occurring in the River District.

I did want to surface with this group though.

The direction that DCR is operating under

is to leave all of our options open

and to try to increase shelter capacity

the best that we can.

That's the direction that we've had

from the city for quite some time.

This ordinance, this draft ordinance

in some ways appears to be at odds

with that direction

because it's limiting what can occur

in the river district.

So I just wanted to restate to this group

that our approach and our direction

is to create as much shelter capacity as we can

because the need is great as well.

And as you can see in our shelters on any given night,

there is a demand and there is a need for shelter beds.

So I just wanted to share that information with this group.

Thank you.

And then a quick question for you.

As I was listening to some of the speakers

and some of the comments from Councillor Plucky Baum,

do we have a reason to believe right now

with current plans that there are additional plan beds

or projects beyond what's already been announced

for the River District?

Other than the safe camping site at Sequoia,

including that which Council Member Pluckyball mentioned?

No, not at this time.

Okay, thank you.

So with that, I'll pass it on to Council Member Dickinson,

and thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you, Chair.

I don't think there's an issue that touches homelessness

that doesn't have at least contrasting,

if not multiple, points of view.

I do think it's fair comment to try to focus on what we're trying to do, not what we're

trying to prevent.

But I also take Council Member Puckibon's comment into account that by potentially placing

a ceiling on beds and services in the River District, we stimulate the discussion about

what we need to do elsewhere.

in other parts of the city.

I have been on a broken record on saying,

if you're not on this issue in particular,

in my opinion, if you're not part of the solution,

you're part of the problem.

Everybody needs to be part of the solution.

We have not achieved that in the city, candidly.

And we haven't achieved it in the county, for that matter.

So there's work to be done there.

But it would be blindness.

intentionally executed to say that there aren't impacts in the River District that are significant.

And they have been there for a long time.

Some argue that that's a historical fact, that that's been the intention,

but our intention needs to change in that regard as far as I'm concerned.

So we have work to do, to be sure, but we can't continue to think about certain parts of this city as being the default location for additional needed services and beds.

And if this proposal helps advance that discussion, then it's a worthy proposal to consider.

So the bottom line for me is I think the whole Council ought to talk about this, regardless

of how we might end up feeling about it.

It ought to be something that is taken up by the full Council.

On that basis alone, I would support moving it on to the Council.

But I also think that realistically we have to get to, or continue maybe, maybe it started,

but get to the point of recognizing how everybody is part of that solution.

So if you have made a motion, you can make it.

Sure, I'll make a motion.

Okay, I'll second the motion.

I'll second.

Okay, Council Member Jennings.

I was trying to make sure I heard the motion before I did speak because I heard the motion.

So if I can hear that clearly again.

I'm moving it forward to the council for consideration.

Okay.

So I'm in deep support for that because when I look at the options that are on the table,

denying the proposal is not an option as far as I'm concerned.

Deferring the request is not an option.

But sending it back to the council and finding what are the options to deal with this as we continue to deal with it throughout the entire region, way beyond just District 4, makes sense to me that we come back and look at it together as opposed to you by yourself dealing with this.

And so I'm more in favor of us as a council dealing with this issue in the river district, but also throughout the entire city and region.

So I would be supportive if that's the motion that's on the table.

Thank you.

I think I will be in the minority here and that's okay.

But I just, I want to say first that I have a deep respect for you, Councilman Plaggibom, and I know exactly what you're trying to accomplish here.

And I really do sympathize with what's happening in the river district.

I am there all the time.

And I see, I think,

Councilman Dickinson's comments are spot on.

We would all be fools not to see

that there has been a concentration, absolutely.

And that has had impacts on businesses,

on the community members that are there.

This is my concern.

One, that this council years ago,

and granted prior to when you both were here,

gave authority to our city manager

to cite locations for homelessness,

whether that be shelter beds,

whether that be other housing resources and programs.

And the reasoning for that at the time, and I still stand behind that vote,

is because it's very political.

Whenever a new site is proposed and it would come to the council,

and if it ever got that far through the politics behind the scenes,

it would be disastrous.

And it made it incredibly challenging for us to actually open up enough sites,

enough beds for the number of people that are experiencing homelessness in our city.

That is still the case.

however with that action that we took several years ago we have seen the

politics decrease we've seen the ability for our city manager and that

administration to be able to find sites and actually move people off the streets

and into programming and shelters that they need and I fear that this proposal

runs afoul of that we actually need to be giving more flexibility in my view to

the city manager to do that job and not making it more difficult my other

concern as it relates to this is it feels like it could be a slippery slope so

you have you know one one community that has very real concerns that are valid

and yet there are also many others I can see Councilmember Dickinson here I can

see many other places in the city of Sacramento that could make very strong

arguments in the same way and and that a cascading fall of other ordinances that

make it even more challenging for us to continue to cite places and so I feel

really strongly from like a good governance standpoint and from a policy and practice

standpoint that it is it's not the right thing to do to continue to cap or to place caps but i do

respect what some of the commenters said we should be placing more locations all throughout the city

i'm a strong proponent of that and i know that um there is not equity at all um as a district that

has uh has has a shelter in it and other options like it is there are challenges that come along

with it but we all have to be a part of the solution and I want to continue to

do that so I'm gonna be voting no today with respect but I see where the votes

are on the table I know this will be moving forward so I just hope that you

keep some of those comments in mind as we move this in forward to council so

with that we'll take a voice vote madam clerk you have a motion by council

member plucky bomb and a second by Dickinson council member Dickinson

Councilmember Plekibohm? Councilmember Jennings? Aye.

Chair Maple? No. Thank you that motion passes. Thank you and so we'll move on to

item 8 councilor proposal request for committee consideration Rova

Community Plan and I am assuming that is you Councilmember Dickinson. Okay I'll

pass it on to you. Thank you chair this is a proposal from Councilmember

Kaplan and and me to ask the I guess said to ask to direct the Planning

Department to undertake a community plan for Robla.

And this request is made for a couple of reasons.

Robla is potentially, possibly a unique part

of the city of Sacramento.

It's an area that was largely and truly up until

relatively recently rural and semi-rural in character.

It does not necessarily fit well in all instances with what we accept as standards for the rest of the city.

It has always been considered in the larger context of North Sacramento

when it has some unusual and different, if not unique, characteristics about it.

It is an area that has for some time now been in transition.

And yet that transition ends up being more piecemeal than anything else because there's really no community vision for the area.

So, Councilmember Kaplan and I believe that a community plan would be appropriate and even essential to guiding the best type of and nature of development for the area, for defining what the vision is, for incorporating the community elements that the community would like to have.

And I don't, and I think Council Member Kaplan shares this view, we don't see how we get there short of a community planning effort.

I do want to note that we've seen a comment or two of concern that there hasn't been sufficient engagement of the community to this point.

And I think that arises from a misunderstanding that what we're doing is adopting a plan or that we have preordained what that plan might be.

So I want to underscore that, as you are, as my colleagues all know, this is the very beginning of the process and one that would include significant community engagement and involvement.

So with that, I would ask that you support the request

that we move this onto the full council.

I would also, just in doing that, mention that this does not come as a surprise to the planning staff.

For anybody who's wondered about that, there have been extensive conversations with the planning staff

staff regarding this proposal and we even, with the help of the planning staff, held

a community meeting a few months ago now to get some sense of community sentiment about

some of the issues related to going into a community plan.

So of course I make this, as does Councilmember Kaplan, this request with the recognition

that just moments ago we passed on the work plan for 26

and the planning department would certainly appropriately

be asked to comment on their ability to incorporate

moving forward with a Roble Community Plan

within the resources that are available.

And that would be of course relevant to the timing

and progress of it.

But if we don't start, we never finish.

So if it's acceptable to chair,

I would make a motion that we send this,

we send this request on to the full council.

And I'll second that.

And with that, do we have any public comment, Madam Clerk?

I have two speakers, Lambert, then Justin Wilson.

Now I see why they did insist I come.

I understand this.

This is District 2.

In District 2, when Alan Wayne Warren was here, I really learned a lot during his stay here.

He was brilliant on enlightening us who grew up here in District 2.

that this is a district that has over 20 communities.

And I've lived in different cities, different states.

I've never seen a community, I mean a district that has that many communities.

That's the ultimate gerrymander because it weakens the dollar

when it comes into a community where I'm from, Del Paso Heights.

And so when I see Robla, I'd like to see more about that.

what actually, and I'll look at the report.

I'll get a report to study that because I was on the road.

I didn't really have time to even look, but I saw Robla.

That's just one of 20 plus communities.

So a person like me wants to know, well, what does it cover?

What boundaries?

How much money is going in there?

What's it for?

because the first thing I'm going to do is compare it to Del Paso Heights and say,

okay, people there pay property taxes too.

So what are we doing here with Robla and then Del Paso Heights?

I compare everything to Del Paso Heights in District 2

because I know the denying that my parents and grandparents

and uncles and aunts had before I was born and after I was born.

So I'm very alert when I see District 2.

And I'm not really comfortable with District 1 being part of it

unless that district dovetails into District 1.

Thank you for your comments.

Justin Wilson is our final speaker on this item.

Good morning, everyone.

My name is Justin Wilson.

I'm a volunteer for the Roble neighborhood association.

I was asked to be here to speak on this and to request that you pass motion three,

sending the matter back to the council member.

We feel like we've been excluded from this.

The Roble community already had a plan.

We've been pushing this for years.

And since this has gotten put forward,

we've been excluded.

So we would like more clarity

and be more included in what's going on.

We want to be clear and we support a need for a community plan that services the needs for the Robla community.

It's a semi-rural character and it includes a culture, an identity that is unlike any other in the city.

And we want to make sure that everybody is represented in that.

the omission and from other plans,

further berries and blurs any clear plans

for economic housing parks and other community developments.

We feel like we've been excluded from it

and we would like it sent back.

Thank you.

All right, I have no more speakers.

Pass it back to Councilman Dickinson

for any closing remarks.

No.

So with that, seeing no other comments from my council members, we have a motion and a

second.

All those in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed or abstain?

Seeing none, that passes unanimously.

Okay, we move on to our final item, I believe.

Our final discussion item, the selection of vice chair for the calendar year 2026.

current vice chairs council member pluckingbaum

any other options on this do you accept the nomination sir okay so we have uh was that a motion

oh you're so right okay so with that we have uh elected our now pass the motion right you did have

We have a second.

Yeah, we have a motion and a second.

We do.

We have all those in paper.

Please say aye to Councilor Flaccoon continuing on for a second term as vice chair.

We have one public comment on that.

Okay.

Mr. Davis.

Did you want to vote?

We'll hear from Mr. Davis.

Thank you.

Sir, I could do such a good job.

It is the easiest way to vote.

Bingo.

He's buttering me up.

Welcome.

I wanted to comment on the vice chair because I wanted to study who you are.

I was a big, there's no shock that I was a huge supporter of Katie Valenzuela, tremendous supporter of hers.

And she was very, very, very alert at the rostrum.

She never rarely did she leave. And I've expressed my concerns about you leaving. And I would hope that you would be more respectful of people like me, because for me to come here at 11 o'clock, it's a reason why the millennials didn't come.

They work at 11 and I'm self-employed and I really they really had to convince me to come here.

So whenever someone comes to the audience like me, who, as you look in here, there aren't too many people left from the public.

You should really go out of your way to stay for public comment because people like me, this is not about ego.

This is about a principled approach by me. And because I am a native, I expect that in return. You get paid, I don't. So all I'm asking is if you're going to represent District 4 as a vice mayor, I mean vice chair, keep that in mind.

because when you go to city council, a lot of people are starting to study you.

They really are because they were huge fans of Katie Valenzuela.

So there's a comparison as always.

If you're coming, I have no more speakers.

So we'll do that again after public comment.

All those in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

That passes unanimously and really thrilled to be serving with you again, Mr. Vice Chair.

So with that, we do have seven public commenters

who are not on the agenda.

So we'll be taking those now.

Just a note for my colleagues

and if there are any listening in the back rooms,

as soon as we're done with that,

we are running late for our closed session.

And so we'll ask the members to come in here

so that we can adjourn into closed session

and then we'll go do that.

So that'll work.

Thank you, Chair.

I have Lambert, Jarrett Hill, Carlos Ramirez,

Fred Barnum, Chris Logston, Chris Cannon,

and then Justin Wilson.

This one, I really do want the Rostrum to pay attention because it's public comments.

It's only two minutes.

You can make that.

First, I would like to say thank you to City Councilwoman Maple because there's a lot of millennials that follow you.

I didn't realize that because my focus is on what I do.

So the information that I left you is from them.

Yes.

And it'll tell you, you know, when you get time, you don't have to deal with it now.

But if you need to reach them, they are the ones that took our family business viral.

Now, I'm still catching on to viral, but they talked about global during the holidays.

I'd like to see that because that could lead to major jobs, instant creation.

And also, I played our granddaughter's song in here many moons ago, and she's gone to college.

One bite? One bite for your life?

Yeah, well.

One bite will change your life.

Well, she'll, they'll send it to you.

Yes.

So you'll know exactly what it said.

but they told me to just give that to you because the millennials mind is on

modern technology my mind is on cheesecake and carrot cake so together

during the holidays we made it happen I mean we I got to give it to them we made

it happen and they begged me to come down here to put this on the record now I'm

gonna end with something that I really want on the record the city manager who's

coming in here I won't be here tonight but I want to get this on the record in

her term sheet it said zero cause termination when I read it if that's

true that means the city could terminate her this year with nine months pay so

Jarrett Hill is our next speaker following Jarrett is Carlos Ramirez

Good afternoon. Good afternoon, everyone.

First, Happy New Year to you all. Welcome back.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak today.

My name is Jared Hill.

I'm one of the 10 original dispensary license opportunity winners from the core program.

And our project is truly on the brink of being successful, being open.

I'm here today with humility and hope, respectfully asking for your support to help us get this across the finish line.

As some of you know, well, first, let me start by taking responsibility.

Despite acting in good faith, we have not opened within the original time frame,

and I fully acknowledge that responsibility that comes with being awarded a core license.

I take that obligation seriously.

This project is not just a business. It is my dream.

I am a United States Air Force veteran, and I have pursued this opportunity with perseverance, discipline, and accountability

because I believe deeply in the purpose of the core program.

The major setback for us was entirely out of our control, as many of you already know.

Our original site was destroyed by fire and burned to the ground, resulting in the total loss of the building and significant disruption to our timeline.

Many would have walked away. We did not.

We rebuilt. We secured a new location, a lease with an approved cup.

We have active applications underway for a minor cut modification for the city BOP permit and for the state DCC license.

We also strengthen our team with additional experience leadership and with compliance oversight to ensure long-term success.

We are so close. We are ready. We are compliant.

today I ask respectfully for your continued support and extension of time

requests we ask that it be forwarded on to full City Council for a vote and so

this dream doesn't be thank you for your comments your time is complete mr. Hill

I have your contact information here I'll be requesting that a representative

from the city manager's office follow up with you about the process for requesting

extension thank you for coming today and I have your email so we're already

following up.

Thank you.

Carlos?

Good afternoon, committee members.

I'm here in support of my colleague, Jared Hill.

My name is Carlos Ramirez.

I serve as legal counsel for

Green Capital Investments, LLC.

This is a vertically integrated cannabis company

where I oversee

10 licenses in all

aspects of the industry, eight of which

are here in the city of Sacramento.

I want to

I want to emphasize that I have extensive experience in licensing and compliance as I've been in this industry since 2017.

And I want to reassure the council that I'm prepared to move this project, move forward with this project quickly.

But we also need reassurances that this extension that my colleague Jared is asking for will be granted.

Now in December, my colleagues and I met with the director of OCM to discuss our plan.

While they are supportive of us, they don't believe we can meet that April 1st deadline, which in my experience, I agree with that.

We were informed that only if the council grants us an extension will our plan come to fruition.

So for this project, as Jared explained, we already have a location with an approved CUP for a cannabis dispensary.

Currently, I already started working on the minor modification to modify the premises to accommodate Mr. Hill's floor plan.

In addition, I've also started the application for the BOP with OCM as well as the state licensing application.

Because things are moving along and based on my experience and my colleague Fred Barnum's experience in this industry,

I asked the council to grant this extension.

based on my experience it takes about a year more or less for a license to be issued so i think that

we can be in operation by the end of this year thank you for your time thank you next speaker

is fred barnum and chris loxton welcome hello thank you my name is fred barnum i'm the ceo and owner

of green capital investments um i just wanted to say let you guys know today if uh jared and chris

are actually granted an extension,

I've agreed to finance their project for them.

So if the city council is agreeable to that,

I'm happy to help them.

I'm a local businessman.

I've been in, since 1990,

I've opened several businesses in,

let's say North Sacramento area,

and I employ over 250 people.

So I enjoy helping people and creating opportunities.

So hopefully you'll help him and then I can help him as well.

Thank you.

Representatives from Council Member Dickinson's office should be in touch.

Thank you.

Chris is our next speaker.

I have three more speakers.

Back up.

Chris Lawson,

lead organizer with the Coalition for Adjusting Ecuador, California.

This is my other hat right now.

I'm here also as a Sacramento resident.

I actually wanted to,

this maybe could have came in item five,

But I just want to provide an update on a bill that is going to take effect, has taken effect as of this week and that we wrote.

The state bill, Senate Bill 515.

This applies to every city and county across the state.

It requires by the 1st of January, 2027,

that this city and this county and others, all others,

update your hiring systems

and create a new category of data collection

for people who are employed by the city and county

who are descendants of people

who were enslaved in this country.

I just wanted to ask the question,

the question we pose when we're taking visits

at the state and other places too,

How many people in District 2 are descendants of people who are enslaved in this country?

How are the kids in District 5 who are descendants of people who are enslaved in this country doing in school?

What about the mothers in District 7 in the hospitals?

How are the mothers who are descendants of people who are enslaved in this country doing in the hospitals?

There is zero answers.

Zero.

We don't know.

So we've been working to change that over the past several years.

It's related to some other work that I'm doing for the state and for the city as well, related to reparations.

This is important to that.

But this is important just because I'm a descendant of people whose ancestors built this country.

My ancestors came here in the 1600s, 1700s.

We fought in every single war.

It's disgusting to me, I have to say, that we weren't even being counted as people until this year.

So just want to make you aware of that in a positive city and county we're happy

to help you implement it and thank you for your comments Chris Cannon and Justin

Wilson. Welcome. Good afternoon to the chair and members of the committee. Thanks

for allowing me to speak today. My name is Chris Cannon. I'm Jared's partner in

the SAC project, the core project. I just wanted to come up here and just

express my feelings about where we're at right now. The project is not just one

person's dream but it's a shared vision between Jared and I we entered the

program with good faith we've invested personal resources and you know with our

trust in Sacramento's commitment to equity we've faced several setbacks as

you all well know that would have ended most projects but you all well know that

we didn't walk away we stayed committed we rebuilt and we moved forward so today

This project is very close to becoming a reality.

We've secured a new location, lease,

assembled an experienced dream team,

and we have our permits in place

and licenses in progress.

The foundation is in place, and we're ready to deliver.

So respectfully, we're leaning on you all

for your support to cross the finish line.

and extension would be the difference in the success story here.

Okay.

And so please don't let this dream go up in flames like our first project.

Thanks for your time, service, and commitment.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Dustin Wilson is our final speaker this afternoon.

Dustin Wilson back.

I spoke at a law and ledge committee meeting last year

about the vacant law program.

And it's a program that's been affecting me

and others in my community.

And in that meeting, it was proposed

that we have a stakeholder meeting

for the vacant law program.

I know that they were trying to expand it.

And I personally have a lot of concerns on that,

especially with everything that I'm dealing with.

And some of my other friends in my neighborhood,

we talk about Roble being unique and not really fitting in

with some of the standards from the city.

And a lot of the things that that vacant lot program

has in it affect us directly.

some of us have houses and they buy the lot next door

and technically that lot is vacant.

Maybe it doesn't have a house on it,

but it's being used by the main house there

or there's other instances,

but I definitely think that there needs to be a discussion

about that program.

So thank you.

Thank you.

And I think we will have an update soon

when such a meeting will be held.

So we'll keep you in the loop.

Thank you.

Yes, Madam Clerk.

Thank you, Chair.

If I may adjourn this meeting to our closed session

that we're a little past due to do.

We will now adjourn to a special meeting

for the purpose of a closed session.

We do have a quorum of city council members in chambers.

There are four items on the agenda.

Those items are as follows.

Conference with Labor Negotiators,

Government Code Section 54957.6.

Designated representatives are Shelley Banks Robinson,

Aaron Donato and Dan Davis. Employee organizations are Sacramento City Exempt Employees Association,

Sacramento Police Officers Association, International Union of Operating Engineers,

Stationary Engineers, Local 39, Sacramento Area Firefighters, Local 522, Sacramento Sierra

Building and Construction Trades Council, Plumbers and Pipefitters, Local 447, Automarine and Specialty

Painters, Local 1176, Western Council of Engineers, International Association of Machinists

and aerospace workers and all unrepresented groups.

Item two is public employee performance evaluation,

government code section 54957B1, title is city treasurer.

Item three is conference with labor negotiators,

government code section 54957.6.

The agency designated representative is Mayor Kevin McCarty.

The title is city treasurer.

And item four is public employment,

government code section 54957B1.

The title is city attorney.

We have no speakers on any of these agenda items for the closed session.

Chair, you may adjourn to closed session.

Your turn to the closed session.

Thank you.

Thank you.