Okay.

All right.

I like to call this meeting in order at 5.03 p.m.

Clark, please call the roll.

Thank you, Councilmember Kathleen.

Councilmember Dickinson.

Here.

Councilmember Pluckybaugh.

Councilmember Maple.

Here.

We expect Mayor Pro Tem Geta momentarily.

Councilmember Jennings.

Council Member Vang.

Here.

Mayor Ricardi will be absent this evening.

And Vicemor Talamantes.

Here.

You have a quorum.

Wonderful.

Uh Councilmember Plecibom, please lead us in the land acknowledgement and pledge of allegiance.

Please rise if you're able.

Thank you.

Please rise to the original people of this land, the Nissanon people, the Southern Maidu, Valley Plains, and Miwok, Patwin Wintu peoples, the people of Wilton Rancheria, Sacramento's only federally recognized tribe.

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

Thank you.

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, ineligable with liberty and justice for all Sunday.

City Attorney, is there anything to report out from close session?

Thank you.

And moving along today, we have two very special um presentations.

The first one will be Autism Awareness Month, and the next one will be International Transgender Day of Visibility.

The first one is being presented by Councilmember Mai Bang.

Thank you so much, uh Vice Mayor.

Today I am so proud uh to recognize April as Autism Acceptance Month.

Um, as an auntie to a nephew with autism, um, I have seen firsthand just the challenges that my sibling and my sister in particular navigate every day as she works to support and advocate for my little nephew in a world that isn't always built uh with them in mind.

Um, and today uh I get an opportunity, mayor and council get an opportunity to honor three organizations whose work continues to make our community stronger, more inclusive, and more compassionate for all.

Uh, in particular, I want to name them, but I also know that there are other advocates beyond these three organizations as well, and want to hold space for them.

Artism, Valen is here to represent Artism, Impact, Layla is here to represent Impact, and UC Davis Mind Institute.

All of these organizations leave with compassion, advocacy, and research, um, and direct support for families throughout the Sacramento region.

Um, in previous years, it was always uh autism awareness month, and we have now uh noted that we're gonna move to autism acceptance month um because awareness tells people that uh autism exists, but acceptance is actually ensuring that we value and include autistic individuals as full members of our society.

And so without acceptance, awareness uh does not change much.

And so this resolution really recognizes the neurodiversity um in our community as a strength.

Um, I also want to take this moment to say we know that not every family actually experience our systems the same way.

Uh black children and children with multilingual households often and other historically underserved communities continue to face significant barriers to care and support, and too often so many of these families actually experience delay diagnosis, language barriers, limited access to culturally responsive care and systems that often do not reflect the lived experiences of these communities.

And so I just want to say that uh for this resolution in particular, because I was proud to present it in previous year, is that the resolution actually call for a community informed system of care that is culturally grounded and linguistically responsive and really rooted in trust.

And so today's resolution is not just a recognition, but it is also a commitment that every child, every individual deserves not only to be seen, but to truly be safe, supported, and empowered to thrive uh in their best abilities.

And so I would love for Valen, uh Leila, and uh I believe Aubin is here to come up and say a few words and also share about the upcoming events that y'all will be hosting um this month.

Come up, come up, come up.

Hello, hello.

Okay, okay.

Good evening.

Mayor.

Council members and community.

Thank you for this recognition.

I receive it with deep gratitude in behalf of all our children and our families.

Right now, one in 31 children are diagnosed with autism, and we have awareness.

People are more familiar, more informed.

We see it all over social media now.

People are paying attention.

And parents are learning, advocating, and showing up for their children.

And slowly but surely, cities and communities are beginning to respond.

But awareness is not enough, as Mai said.

Now we have to move into acceptance and to be clear on what that truly looks like.

Acceptance looks like early diagnosis.

It looks like access to services.

It looks like inclusive classrooms where children are supported and not pushed aside.

It looks like culturally responsive care with families being seen and heard.

It looks like safe spaces in our community where our children are simply being themselves.

And I thank you for that.

Spaces where children were celebrated, supported, and free to express who they are.

And the work is not done alone.

I work with people like Alter Regional, Warm Line, Fly Brave, Socket to Autism, The Autism Way, Jari's World, hope you know about them.

Music to grow on, Johnny's Playground, E.G.

Speaks, and they're standing with our families, and we appreciate them.

We are also grateful to the leadership of the Disability Advisory Commission, older adult commission, and youth community leadership through Yipsey.

This recognition is meaningful, but it also reminds us the work must continue and it has to be possible together.

Let's continue to build a community where children and every child is seen, supported, and celebrated, like Mai said.

Because of our children, we deserve that.

We deserve more than awareness.

They deserve acceptance in action.

Thank you so much.

I'm late to the party.

Happy birthday, friend.

Um, thank you.

Thank you so much so so much.

I know we talked um about this separately, but I this is such an honor to be able to get something like this in front of everyone.

It's been so many years that autism was never ever not just accepted, but it was never even acknowledged.

And so this is huge because we have a huge community that are um trying to navigate the world of autism, and they don't know how.

And so when you have folks like the three of us, you know, standing here, and we're promoting this and we're given all the resources.

That's what families need.

They need to be routed to resources.

And in our communities, not only are we underdiagnosed, but we don't have access to the to the resources that are there.

So it's not enough to just have them there.

We have to be able to get in the room and get in the building that have the those access, accessible resources for our children and our loved ones, because it's not just children, but we have adults that are also functioning with autism as well.

So this is such an honor because it's um the hard work that we do, you know, and it encompasses so much of our world and our life.

So I always appreciate um heart moments like this.

I'm a mother of an autistic son who wasn't able to come, it's too much stimulation for him.

Um, and that's okay, but um, but he's always here with me, and um it's it's just an honor because I remember having to navigate this world alone and not ever had never had met anybody, at least so I thought, um, that um had autism or had a child with autism.

So now to be in a community like this where we have it so much, and it's okay to talk about it, and there's no shame behind it, and it's okay to receive everything that we need.

I appreciate it so much.

So thank you to the whole council.

Thank you, thank you, thank you, and to the city of Sacramento for the recognition.

Thank you so much.

Thank you, Mai, thank you, City Council for this recognition and moving our city from awareness to acceptance.

I am proud to be here with Robert Levy, representing the Mine Institute.

This recognition really matters to autistic people in our city, and especially those who are underserved.

The UC Davis Mine Institute is really proud to stand alongside the city and all of our community partners to advance research, clinical care, and community engagement that is culturally responsive and rooted in equity.

Resolutions like this and confirm that inclusion is not just a right, it's a responsibility for our city.

We're grateful for your leadership and look forward to continuing to work together.

Today, when I said I was coming here today, someone said it's great that we've moved to autism acceptance month.

I'm ready for when it's autism celebration month.

Thank you so much.

Why don't you all come up here?

We'll take a we'll take a photo, yes.

Okay, ready.

Big cheese over here.

One, two, three.

One more.

Coach.

Coach.

I'm a liquid.

I'm a LeBron team.

Good to see you.

Okay.

Congratulations.

All right.

Councilmember Bang, thank you so much for bringing this important resolution into our partners in this.

I think that's so beautiful.

Autism celebration and acceptance.

That is uh really well said, and just thank you so much for bringing this to the council.

Uh, next up, we have Transgender Day Visibility presented by Councilmember Kaplan, Councilmember Plucky Bomb, and Mayor Pro Tem Gera.

Thank you, Vice Mayor.

I'll start it off before I hand over to Councilmember Pluckybom and our Mayor Pro Tem Eric Guerra.

For those of us who weren't able to join us this morning, but we rose a flag outside of City Hall to say yes to love.

Straight up, straight and simple.

Love is love and no to hate, and that Sacramento will always stand by our transgender and LGBTQI community because we must stand up and protect the rights of everyone.

But this afternoon, we're further dedicating the council to the support of our community by truly identifying and making sure that we honor March 31st as transgender visibility day, and we apologize.

We had no council meetings until now to be able to do that.

So I want to thank my council members, Pluckybaugh, and uh Mayor Pro Tem Gera for co-sponsoring this special presentation with me.

You know, transgender sacramentans are us.

They are all Sacramentans.

They are essential part of our rich tapestry for the city, and I think we should not only today but every day celebrate their contributions to our community, culture, and identity.

And in spite of the efforts of those in power to abandon the principles of justice and solidarity and just plain and simple love and attack the rights of those they don't understand.

We as Sacramento are committing to say no.

No, no, no.

We are a sanctuary city for our LGBTQI, and we are not gonna allow our transgender community to be erased.

That's why, in addition to recognizing this transgender day of visibility, we're also honoring an organization dedicated to the mission of selflessness.

That's why, in addition to recognizing this transgender day of visibility, we're also honoring an organization dedicated to the mission of selflessness, a mission to end discrimination against transgender and our LGBTQI community, and enhance access to health care resources and other essential support services that are absolutely and 100% needed.

So before we bring them up, we'll let others speak, but I want to say thank you to the gender health center for modeling love, service, unity through your daily work to uplift others and build community of acceptance and celebration.

Because we are grateful for the center's executive director, Dr.

Malik Malachi Coti uh for joining us this afternoon.

But I also want to thank other organizations that we invited.

Some are in attendance, some not, but the Sacramento May Gay Men's Choir, the Sacramento LGBT Center, Sack State Pride Center, Stonewall Democrats of Greater Sacramento, the Stonewall Foundation of Greater Sacramento, the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence, the United Courts of CGNIE, the Capitol LGBTQ Plus Association, the Los Rios Pride Center, Sunburst Project, and Out Loud Sports.

It's together.

Together we bring an abundance of love, and you should be loved no matter what.

So I would like to turn it over to Councilmember Phil Placidon.

Thank you, Councilmember Kaplan.

Cities are projects based on cooperation, collaboration, and trust.

And as we work as a city to be more perfect, more just, more inclusive, more equitable, the project continues.

We know that there is more work that we need to do, but you know, we will continue to stand behind all Sacramentans and make sure that this is a city that respects civil rights, uh, tolerance, inclusion, and uh and equity and justice for all.

Uh, Councilmember Gare.

Thank you very much, Councilmember.

You know, uh, one, uh our transgender community has been part of the building of our city, uh, not only in the shaping of our culture, our resiliency, but of cross-generations.

And this is again the point of visit a day of visibility for our community.

And an important note is that over 500 pieces of anti-LGBTQ legislation have been introduced.

And not only that, targeting our young people.

As a parent, that to me, I find it appalling because it's our young people that are being targeted when we need to be supporting them in this effort.

Nearly one in three of our transgender people in California have reported discrimination uh in employment or in housing, which are all things that we've been fighting in for decades to make sure that everyone has equal representation when it comes to where you work and where you live.

And I want to thank again, Dr.

Malachi Koti, again with uh the trend the uh gender health center uh for making sure that we provide free health clinics, do the HIV testing, and the critical linkages to care.

Um, not only do we want good employment, good housing, good opportunities, but we want a healthy community, and and we do it by making sure that we acknowledge everyone in our society here.

Um, and uh so this gives us power, it gives us power, it makes us a stronger Sacramento because when we support everyone, we are stronger together.

And with that, I'm proud to hear to be a co-author in Let's Go Sacramento.

So thank you everyone.

I would like to bring up uh Dr.

Malachi Coti to say a couple of words.

Hello, what an honor to receive and be here today with everyone.

And let's go Sacramento, yes.

Um I have a little bit of a message to what we call our trans baddies and our allies.

Okay, we're talking about trans lifetimes of vitality and vision.

So on trans day of visibility, we often we call in our ancestors and the lineages that run through us.

Forget a day, we move in lifetimes as gender expansive, gender-diverse, trans people, our vision is both ancient and unfolding.

From this vantage point, erasure is impossible.

Our ancestry is too deep.

We are trans baddies.

Visibility is existence, breathe, move, connect, be present.

We help to find your refuge spaces and simply be.

This month, as in every month, we honor trans beauty, vibrance, vision, and vitality.

We remain committed to serving trans joy and all of its complexity, even amidst the madness of these times.

And so we're so grateful to be also surrounded by so many of our allies.

So our trans family night includes our gender expansive kids group, our teen group, and our parents group.

And so people are doing work right now of creating refuge spaces for our community.

HIV testing, I mean, we we cover all of the dimensions of aliveness of vitality for our community, and we do it from a place of love.

We do it from a place of compassion, and we do it from a place of knowing that there is so much more for us within our communities.

So thank you so much for this opportunity.

We are standing strong as the gender health center and providing care for all of our community members.

Thank you.

Oh, don't go away.

I want to invite everybody who is here to support down to the well.

And can I have Plucky Bomb and Mayor Pro Tem join me?

Perfect.

Your good night.

Vice Mayor, can I Vice Mayor?

Can I have you take a step just a little towards Mark?

Yeah, yeah, no, that way a little bit.

Perfect.

Yeah, I could scoot down just a little bit.

Perfect.

That's perfect.

Thank you, everyone.

What a perfect.

So can everyone look here?

Ready?

We're gonna say trend, or we're gonna say visibility on three.

Ready?

One, two, three.

Visibility.

Awesome.

Thank you, everyone.

Thank you so much.

Thank you.

All right.

Thank you so much for everyone for coming out here and to my council colleagues.

Thank you so much for your leadership and celebrating this beautiful day.

Um sometimes city staff uh when they are retiring, see their name on the council agenda and think, oh no, maybe I'll skip this council meeting.

So close to retirement.

So today we do have a special acknowledgement, Mr.

Tom Pace.

Come on up to the podium.

This is the wonderful awkward time where you get to stand at the podium and people say very kind things to you.

And you don't get grilled on a bunch of questions about uh council items.

So uh we have two special things for you.

Um, don't have them here with us today, but they're um in the works, and we're really excited to present you with them.

Of course, one is a resolution, another one is a special gift.

City manager uh has not disclosed it to me yet.

Uh but with that being said, um, Tom Pace is our director of community development, and uh he is going to be retiring, and he has contributed so much to the Sacramento region on being a pro-housing jurisdiction, on being innovative with housing policy, uh, with picking up the phone anywhere, everywhere you are, and helping answer our questions as we face this housing shortage in California.

And I know you've served the city of Sacramento for so long, and you love our city, and that shines through you in every single meeting.

And I mean, we don't become a pro-housing jurisdiction, the first city in the California for no reason.

It's because of people like you and the team that you had here with you.

So if you're a team member of Tom Paces, please stand up.

Thank you.

These are the incredible people that are continue, they're gonna continue the work, continue your legacy and everything that you've built.

So thank you so much for making all these wonderful hires, and we look forward to the next steps of the city of Sacramento and addressing housing affordability.

Uh, next up, we have Mayor Pro Tengera.

Well, thank you very much, Vice Mayor.

Well, you know, Tom Pace is my boss.

He's a constituent of District Six, you know.

So, one, I've got to say we've got a great boss here, you know.

Uh, and uh, but but no, and all in and in all jest and all earnestness, I mean 25 plus years in this realm.

And I'm glad we brought him back because when I first came on to the council, he was uh he was at this at the I think you were without a beard back then.

But but more importantly, uh if you think about all of our the the different projects that have gone on in the city of Sacramento and the general plans and where we've evolved now as a city, like a modernized city and addressing our our housing challenges where we were once a uh a city that was focused on just building four bedroom and two and a half bathroom houses with you know three-car garages.

No, it was the leadership that has come out of uh his uh office and his team that has now uh recognized that we need to have a div a city that fits uh everyone from all ages in life.

And and I I do think that thinking about that.

I mean, you live in one of the I think what it was the revolutionary communities, campus commons that are that had thought about, hey, we have to think differently about housing.

And I really appreciate the fact that we were able to get you back to Sacramento to look at permit streamlining, looking at uh within a what can we do better to provide better customer services uh and and to make sure that as we grow as a city that we're not thinking uh what did we do 20 years behind us, but what is the next uh 30 to 40 years look for us.

So I appreciate you, Tom.

Thank you for you know uh at least teaching me as a council member about housing planning and and questions I should be asking.

Uh and with that, uh you know very proud to have him as a great Sacramentan.

Love it.

And you may have uh a more active boss in the community.

All right.

Next up, we have Councilmember Dickinson.

Thank you, Vice Mayor.

And uh, you know, Tom, uh it seems to me that that when we first crossed paths, you you were at that uh beginning planner stage.

Uh and I'm not even sure I was in elective office at the uh at the time.

But r regardless of uh of that, I know that uh there were so many occasions in those days which were you know just like five years ago.

Um when we were thinking about talking about and working on how to create a more vital, vibrant environment in the city of Sacramento, how to how to create a community that welcomed all that that met the needs of uh all those who wanted to to live and work in um in this great city.

Uh and that was a challenging time because uh not everyone was uh attuned to the the same direction.

Uh uh and it's it's been my observation over the uh over the those intervening years since we since we first met that uh you have just continued to look at the future and what it would look like to create that perfect that model community that that embraces uh everybody, the the uses that we engage in, uh the uh paths we follow, how to how to create that that community that welcomes uh all uh and that and that has been uh it seems to me a north star for you as as you've progressed through your career to to where you are today.

What's what I think is hopefully rewarding is you can see the product of that work.

You can see the result of that investment that that you that you and others in the planning department over the years have made uh to create a to create that vibrant, vital city.

Uh and so I hope as um uh I hope as you go on to the next chapter uh whatever you choose it to be that you will look back with with not just fondness on your service to the people of of the city of Sacramento, but with great pride, because I certainly look at what you have have done as as being a a marker for what planners uh across the spectrum uh ought to do when they're thinking about how to create a better community for for those who who live and work there.

Uh uh it's a lot of fun in its own way to think about uh those things and point out and we did this, we did that, we we made that happen.

We kept that from happening, all those kinds of all those kinds of decisions that were made over the years that in culmination create create uh a better community.

So I I simply want to offer uh my thanks for for your service, uh my thanks for your contribution, uh, and my thanks for uh having had the opportunity to to work with you uh over the years on a uh on a variety of endeavors.

Best of wishes.

All right, and Councilmember Maple.

Okay, I'm gonna pile on here.

Um I don't have quite the length of experience uh with you as my my two colleagues here.

Um but I did want to say for the the tiny uh bit of the iceberg uh that I have shared with you over the last few years, it's been wonderful.

Um I think particularly because of how forward-thinking you are and how and your department and how we've been able to shift so much in Sacramento.

We are by far one of the most progressive cities as it relates to housing policy as it relates to some of the changes that we're making with permitting and um just making it easier to do business and to build housing here in Sacramento, and so I think that's a testament to the work that you've done over the last several years, many years, um, long before I was here.

And so um really proud to have worked alongside you and to share that little bit of time and and the the larger scale of your time of Sacramento, you should be very proud of the work that you've done, and I really look forward to hearing what you have to say about your time here.

Thank you.

All right, um, tell us any more council members, and of course, your work on Streamlined Sacramento.

Um you are just so innovative, so thank you.

The floor is yours.

Good evening.

Thank you, uh, Vice Mayor and Council members uh for this um unexpected recognition.

So I I you said uh something about seeing my name on the agenda.

I I didn't see this on the agenda, so wasn't expecting it, but thank you so much.

Uh a wonderful surprise.

Um, you know, I stand on the shoulders of many great uh people that came before me, uh both on the city staff side as well as elected officials who lay the groundwork for the work that that we do today and for the physical results that we see on the ground today and the new kinds of development that we see happening in the city.

Um so I certainly can't uh claim credit.

And unfortunately, with planning, or maybe fortunately, um you know, great ideas sometimes take decades to come to fruition.

And I remember um talking with some colleagues about the central city housing strategy that was put forward in the 90s, and you know, we wasn't really until around 2015 that we started to see the explosion of housing happening in the central city that we have seen over the last decade.

Um and so that that's just one example of of many.

Uh and I I'm very grateful for the support of my team.

I have an excellent staff of very competent people who uh do the great work that uh you see every day.

And uh you know, without them, none of this could have been possible.

And I also like to say that the relationship between um city staff and elected officials is a little bit of a push-pull kind of relationship.

There are times where you know you uh would like us to do certain things, and you're persuading us that we should uh support you and help you in accomplishing your goals, and there are some things that that uh you know we uh try to advise you to do or ask or encourage or advocate for you to do.

And so that back and forth that happens and has happened over several decades is really what has led to this result.

None of this could have happened without the elected leaders of Sacramento and without your continued support for uh good planning policy.

So I I appreciate uh all of you.

I live here in Sacramento, I'm not going anywhere, and so um I will continue to um advocate in my own way, I'll I'll figure out what that looks like.

Uh and uh I'm also involved in uh legislative review at the state level as well, so um I I keep a close eye on housing planning related legislation.

So uh that's one of my volunteer works that I'll be doing in my retirement.

So thank you very much.

I appreciate it.

Thank you, Tom.

Um, we we don't have a resolution, but we would like to take a photo with you.

So if we can um all my council colleagues come down, please uh photo with Tom, that'd be great.

You can join Council Member Guerra's neighborhood association.

I'll take a photo too.

Oh my phone's like pre-old piece.

I don't know if you want to make more.

Oh, yeah, yeah.

Thank you.

Congratulations.

All right.

So for public hearings, we have two items that have been withdrawn.

Clerk, do we need to read anything to the record?

No.

Okay.

So moving along to discussion calendar, our 2040 general plan and zoning consistency.

I'm assuming no questions for Mr.

Tom Pace.

It's actually Tom Pace's retirement party, so perfect.

Yeah, well, good evening, Vice Mayor and Council members.

My name is Jamie Mosler, and I'm an associate planner in the community development department.

I'm here tonight as part of our 2040 general plan and zoning consistency efforts to conduct a workshop focused on missing little housing and Senate Bill 79.

As an overview of tonight's workshop, I'll first provide some background information.

I'll then describe both missing little housing and SB 79 and staff's recommendations for both of these.

I'll then outline what next steps remain for the broader zoning consistency work, and we'll then we'll have time for discussion following.

There are two key questions tonight that we are seeking city council direction on for missing little housing.

What type of change should the 2040 general plans policies mean in existing neighborhoods?

And for Senate Bill 79, what should the city's approach to implementation be?

Tonight we're asking city council to review, comment, and provide direction on high level concepts and recommend a type of change in existing neighborhoods.

Staff will then use this direction to draft more specific development standards such as height, setback, etc.

for the ordinance.

We don't fully have those yet developed yet at this part of in this part of the zoning code update process.

So to provide some background information, the reason we're here tonight is working towards implementing the 2040 general plan.

General plan provides more general longer term direction that is implemented through many tools such as zoning, which is more shorter term and specific.

State law requires that zoning is consistent with the general plan, and so staff is in the processes updating the zoning code to align with the 2040 general plan.

There are several updates we're working on as part of this project, but we're focusing on just a few of them tonight.

First, we have direction from the 2040 general plan to update our development standards in the zoning code.

What this means is removing maximum residential density citywide and replacing and updating our development standards to be aligned with the maximum floor area ratio in the general plan.

And this work is being done across all zones citywide.

We're also working on codifying the missing middle housing interim ordinance.

This was adopted in summer 2024 as an interim step before the complete zoning code update, which is where we're at now.

This includes refining the ordinance based on implementation experience, allowing house scale buildings with multiple units and the single unit and duplex zones across the city.

SB 79 becomes effective July 1st of this year.

This bill establishes statewide standards for housing near transit that sometimes exceed allowances in the general plan.

This applies to eligible zones within half mile of transit stops.

Throughout tonight's presentation, you're gonna hear floor air ratio or FAR a lot, so I wanted to spend a moment on this.

The image on the left shows an FAR of 0.63 across three buildings with a duplex, triplex, and sixplex, 11 units total here.

Um the middle image shows an FAR of 1.24 on that same lot, more of an apartment building scale with 26 units, and then FAR of 1.9 on the far right is what that looks like.

Um apartment building with about 30 units at it.

The general plan includes policies to both encourage increased residential development intensity in your transit and also to recognize patterns in existing neighborhoods.

And staff is seeking direction on how best to balance these policies when updating the zoning code for consistency with the 2040 general plan.

As mentioned for missing little housing, our key question tonight is what type of change do the 2040 general plan's policies mean in existing neighborhoods.

Based on SOF's analysis, which was supported by Opticos Design, we see there are three potential types of change minor, moderate, and transform.

And we'll show more examples of what these could look like.

The type of change that council provides direction on will inform what objective standards staff prepares and what scale of development should be reviewed at staff level.

The type of change would inform what the height limit should be, how close or far apart buildings should be, how wide, how deep, what open space requirements, all at staff level, and then anything beyond that would require director level review.

When we talk about missing little housing, there are generally two categories house scale and upper.

House scale is designed to blend into neighborhoods with one to two story homes that's similar in scale as a house.

It was addressed in our missing little housing interim ordinance and a lot of the outreach during the 2040 general plan adoption process.

And there's also upper MMH.

This is a little bit taller, typically three to four stories, similar in width as a house scale MMH if you look at both of those buildings from the street, but it extends deeper into the lot.

This wasn't considered for the interim ordinance, but it's now being considered in areas with a maximum floor error ratio of two.

We've also been reflecting on what the interim ordinance has produced so far.

As of March 25th, there were 34 planning applications submitted, 22 approved, and eight in progress.

The most common building types we're seeing are by far buildings with one or two dwelling units on them, and we had one application that proposed at least 20 units per building.

Across approved projects, the average FAR we're seeing is 0.4, average density, 18 dwelling units per acre, and about 13 units per application, not per lot, some involve subdivisions and the one building with some multi-unit dwellings to affect that average.

As mentioned, the 2040 general plan establishes maximum FARs to regulate building intensity.

Most parcels in the single unit and duplex zones eligible for MMH have either a maximum FAR of 1.0 shown on the map on the left in the yellow or 2.0 as shown on the map in the right in the more reddish color.

Over 100,000 parcels across the city have a maximum FAR of one in the single unit and duplex zones, and then over 20,000 have a maximum FAR of two.

Those are located within a half mile of transit.

As we update our development standards citywide to align with the maximum FAR, we are looking to create a set of objective standards for both FAR one and FA2 areas.

As we reflect on the patterns in existing neighborhoods with a max FAR of one, what is on the ground today is mostly one to two story single family homes.

These are images from across the city in areas like North Sacramento, Natomas, East Sacramento, South Sacramento.

And as mentioned, our question we're looking for what type of change the 2040 general policies mean in existing neighborhoods.

And that type of change will inform what scale of projects are reviewed at the staff level.

So in areas with FAR1, what type of change should be reviewed at staff level?

For minor change, this would mean things like cottage courts, duplexes, and triplexes.

For moderate change, this would also include small multiplexes, and then for transformative change, this would also include full three-story multiplexes.

Staff is recommending that both minor and moderate change be reviewed at staff level.

Staff has not fully developed standards yet, but preliminary standards could include replacing the bolt control tent with the third story allowance and a pitched roof, but keeping the current 35 maximum overall height limit.

New building width and depth standards for house scale development.

New ability to exceed objective standards, including for transformative change with a director level hearing.

This is a change from our interim ordinance that currently doesn't have a process for deviation, and this would create more flexibility.

And then this image shows moderate change, but anything at the staff level would still be, or excuse me, anything below moderate change at minor change would still be reviewed at staff level as well.

All right, so what about the other parcels with a max FAR of 2.0?

When we look at the existing neighborhood patterns today, many of these areas, it doesn't look too different from what's on the ground in the areas of max FAR of 1.0, but they are closer to transit, and so they have double the FAR allowance per the 2040 general plan.

So in these areas with the max FAR of two, we also ask what type of change should be reviewed at staff level.

Given the higher FAR here, minor change would be a staff level review for things like floorplexes, moderate change would be things like larger multiplexes, and then transformative change would be staff level review of buildings larger than MMH.

That's the same image from earlier that shows an FAR of 1.9.

Staff is recommending that both minor and moderate change be reviewed at staff level.

Again, staff has not fully developed standards yet for this yet, but what it could include would be removing the bulk control tent completely in these areas, looking at increasing the current 35 height limit to allow a fourth floor, new building and wet building width and depth standards, but they would be allowing a bigger building than in the FAR 1.0 areas, and then a new ability to exceed any of these objective standards with the director level hearing.

And then again, this image shows moderate change, but anything minor change would still be a staff level review in this recommendation.

But state new state legislation goes a little bit further than this in terms of scale.

With SB 79, the key question tonight is what should the city's approach to implementation be?

So SB79 becomes effective July 1st of this year.

It establishes statewide zoning standards for eligible housing near transit.

Affected areas are shown on this map on the slide.

Areas in red or within 200 feet of a transit stop are allowed a height of 85 feet in an FAR of four.

Parcels in orange within a quarter mile, a height of 65 feet and an FAR of three.

And then parcels a quarter to a half mile, a height of 55 feet and an FAR of 2.5.

This intersects with the missing little housing policy that we've been talking about, and there are about 29,000 parcels shown here on this map in the single unit and duplex zones that are eligible for MMH but also eligible for SB79 due to their proximity transit.

However, to utilize SB79, projects need to meet several of the state's requirements, such as being a housing or mixed use project with at least five units, meeting a minimum density of 30 dwelling units per acre or the local standard, whichever is greater.

Um average unit size can't exceed 1750 square feet.

Um projects with 10 or more units have to provide some affordable units within that project, and then anything over 85 feet tall has labor must comply with labor standards.

There's several options in the bill for how cities are can implement it locally, but staff is recommending two tonight.

We're recommending a local implementing ordinance and codifying height standards into the zoning code.

What this means is we would have an ordinance clarifying how applications would be processed without modifying the state standards.

But in our commercial and higher intensity residential zones near transit, we would codify the SB79 heights, meaning they would match the SB79 heights without and projects could utilize those without having to meet all of the eligibility requirements of SB 79.

Rationale for this is to prioritize intensity along commercial corridors, which is the policy in the general plan, and then also allow affordable housing to utilize the development standards of SB79.

So projects and the MMH zones that comply with SB79 could still utilize those standards.

SB79 and MMH are two steps of the entire zoning consistency project, and I'll describe what next steps remain for the broader zoning code update work.

So staff is approaching this work in four phases.

Right now we're in the analysis phase, analyzing approaches, things for missing little housing, SB 79, several other items.

We met with the planning and design commission on March 26th, and we're getting city council direction tonight as well.

Once we have direction on those items, we'll prepare a framework of all the proposed changes and do community engagement.

And once we have the community's input, we'll then prepare the ordinance to bring forward for final public hearings and adoption with anticipated adoption by city council by the end of the year in the winter.

That concludes my presentation.

Myself and city staff are available to answer any questions.

We're also joined by Tony Perez from Optic Coast Design, who can answer questions about missing little housing as well.

We also wanted to highlight there is a project website at cityofsacramento.gov slash zoning code update where folks can sign up for updates to stay involved as we move forward.

I'm gonna leave these questions up to guide our discussion, and we look forward to hearing your thoughts.

Thank you.

Thank you so much, Jamie.

Uh we will take public comment and then we will do council comments.

Thank you, Vice Mayor.

18 speakers?

Yes, I have 18 speakers.

The Chris first is Chris Valencia, Josh Oaken, Troy Wilkinson, then Ryan Foster.

Hello, Madam Vice Mayor and members of the city council.

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

And there are over 500 members building housing here in Sacramento.

The North State BIA supports the missing middle housing ordinances written for the interim ordinance that has been effective with the exception of the bulk control envelope.

The update to the ordinance make changes that will ultimately stall the intentions it's meant to address.

Design review is an already lengthy process.

Adding additional complicated standards only serves the length in that process given the complicated nature of the proposal.

Inconsistent interpretation, which this has a high potential of, will create costly delays as planners and architects will have to go back and forth to meet specifications laid out here.

Smaller developers lack the time and resources to engage in an elongated process with ultimately abandoned efforts to build.

We ask that you do not develop an ordinance that will raise costs and disproportionately harm the very people.

The middle uh housing policies are intended to support consistency and clarity of rules, such as those in the interim ordinance are essential.

I ask that you implement the original interim ordinance without the bolt control envelope rather than a new untried framework.

We look forward to partnering with the city of Sacramento.

And look forward to working with you.

Thank you.

Next speaker's Josh.

Good evening.

Madam Vice Mayor and Council members.

My name is Josh Oaken.

I'm here on behalf of the Sacramento Association of Realtors and our over 6,000 members.

We appreciate the city's continued focus on expanding housing options, especially when it comes to missing middle housing.

These are the types of homes that can help bridge the gap between single family homes and larger apartment projects.

And they play an important role in creating more attainable options across our community.

From our perspective, the key issue here is making sure these projects are actually feasible to build.

As a new as new requirements are layered in, particularly around bulk control and additional design standards, it can become more difficult for smaller scale projects to move forward.

These are often uh already tight deals and even small changes can have a real impact on whether a project pencils out or not.

We absolutely support thoughtful design and maintaining neighborhood character.

At the same time, we want to be mindful of how added complexity and cost can affect production, especially for the types of housing we are trying to encourage.

Our goal is to see a balanced approach that allows for quality development while still making it possible to deliver these projects in practice.

Because at the end of the day, increasing supply is a key part of addressing affordability, and that only happens if projects are able to move forward.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Roy Wilkinson and Ryan Foster.

Hello, Council.

Uh, thank you for hearing from me.

And I really appreciate an echo uh comments about how great it is to be focused on missing middle housing, and want to additionally uh echo the opposition to bulk controls and anything that would overly regulate and um delay these types of projects coming into effect.

Uh I think it's very clear to most Americans at this point, but uh particularly to Sacramentans that we have issues with uh housing shortages and homelessness and anything that uh delays and increases costs to that um that prohibits solving uh these issues.

I think uh we would better do without.

So just opposition to the bulk controls, but uh very happy of how uh pro housing um that you all have been.

Uh so thank you for your time.

Ryan Foster, then Michael Bevins.

Hey, I'm Ryan Foster.

Um I also wanted to say that I want to make it as easy as possible to build housing, and I don't think adding a pitched roof to a house necessary necessarily is gonna get you an attractive building.

Um I know we've all seen McMansions that are a bit of an eyesore, and I've also seen um flat roofed houses uh that are really attractive.

I live out over by 20th and uh T Street, and there's a bunch of beautiful, beautiful row homes that they built there.

It's three stories.

They've got nice um facade work on the outside, and it really makes it blend well with the the single family houses across the street.

And so I think um it's important to realize that it's the architecture of the building and not necessarily this ideal of shape roof that's gonna get you an attractive building that fits in with the neighborhood.

Um then also just thinking about what's actually gonna get built, like some other people have said.

I don't know how many buildings I've really seen where the third story is built into the gabled roof.

I I don't know how common that is, and it makes for kind of a funky space inside.

So I'd be concerned that that effectively is just nullifying the third story.

So thank you.

Michael Bevins, then Michael Turgeon, hello, council members.

Um Michael Evans, I'm district two, just FYI.

Um whatever you do and change or not change, just for the sake of the layman, make it simple.

Um hopefully you can look at a picture, a map of your parcel.

And if I want to make uh a boarding house or an RV park in my backyard, I just want to know what my restrictions are that I can't not do, and then what inside this bubble I am allowed to do, and then I can dream my dream as long as I fit the uh the criteria.

Uh I if I wanted to take uh an old-fashioned house here in Midtown, like beautiful painted three-story house, and I wanted to put in my neighbor, but I think right now I can't do it.

I think it's against the zoning codes or something.

So I think that something like that should be made possible, whether it's a pitched roof or a flat roof.

I just whatever the restrictions are, I want to know what they are ahead of time before I uh you know hire a consultant to see if I can build a three-story house in my neighborhood and find out later I can't.

So uh remember strong towns, one of the uh criteria of strong towns is uh no neighborhood should be exempt from incremental change.

And on the same token, no that same neighborhood or any neighborhood should not be forced to take on excessive change.

So, somewhere in the middle, I think is where we need to focus, and please just make it simple for the layman.

Thank you.

Michael Turgeon, then Damian Diamato.

Yeah, hi everyone.

Uh Michael Turgeon here, uh president of House Sacramento, uh, your local grassroots uh YIMBY organization.

Um I'm gonna keep it simple this evening and uh just list off the great list of organizations that we've gotten both here tonight and two years ago, expressing their opposition, uh particularly to the bulk control standards and support for a more ambitious uh missing middle ordinance that includes Alcalayan Mansion Flats uh Historic Neighborhood Association, Build Casa, downtown Sacramento Partnership, Environmental Democrats of Sacramento County, Habitat for Humanity of Greater Sacra of Greater Sacramento, House Sacramento, that's us, the Midtown Association, the Midtown Neighborhood Association, the Newton Booth Neighborhood Association, North State Building Industry Association, the Oak Park Neighborhood Association, uh, the Sacramento Area Bicycle Advocates, the Sacramento Asian Pacific Chamber of Commerce, Sacramento County Young Democrats, uh, the Sacramento Housing Alliance, the Sacramento Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce, uh, and Strong SAC Town.

Um, also I gave some printouts at the head of the meeting, and uh because he couldn't be here today.

Um I included an excellent letter that we got from then Assemblymember Kevin McCarty two years ago, um, the key bit.

However, I have concerns regarding the proposed bulk control standards.

Uh I urge the city council to reconsider and remove these standards from the MMH ordinance.

Um and we've also gotten letters just today from Environmental Council of Sacramento and from East SAC Community Association expressing concern about the bulk control standards and ESCA is not supportive of measures that would unduly constrain or prohibit the production of needed housing.

I would say we are right there uh with ESA ESCA.

We would love to come back here later in the year and be able to offer a support position on behalf of House Sacramento and all these groups um for more missing middle housing.

Uh, we're concerned that the uh moderate uh position in the uh staff report.

If you try to break that down into a um concrete list of policy proposals, it's not really moderate.

In fact, that might be taking us backwards.

Um, and we think uh we should be moving forwards and making it easier to build missing middle for all the benefits.

Thank you for your comments.

Our next speaker is Damien Diamato, then Kaylee Olgerson, then Aaron Prickett.

Good evening to the members of the council.

My name is Damon D'Amato, and I live in District One.

I'm here to oppose the width and debt restriction and the maximum eve height in the missile mining uh the missing middle housing ordinance.

Sacramento already allows more housing in R1 zones through the general plan and missing middle housing ordinance, but design restrictions like those can still block that capacity in practice by increasing cost and reducing feasibility of projects.

Changing these aspects in the ordinance is the simplest way to align zoning with policy and unlock housing without changing neighborhood use.

I encourage the council to remove these constraints to better align our design standards with our housing plans.

Thank you.

Kaylee.

Following Kaylee's Aaron Crickett, then Alyssa Lee.

Good afternoon.

My name is Kayleigh Olgerson, and I'm here on behalf of the Sacramento Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce and our member businesses across the city of Sacramento to express our concerns with the proposed changes to the missing middle housing ordinance.

We appreciate the city's continued focus on housing production and if its efforts to refine existing policies.

However, we're concerned that the amendments proposed risk undermining the very types of housing that our regional workforce depend on.

The proposed amendments, including new width and depth ratio standards, additional height limitations, and expanded reliance on discretionary review, introduce further complexity and uncertainty into an already challenging development environment.

In practice, these changes risk making missing middle projects financially infeasible and less likely to be built.

When these housing types become harder to deliver, the impact is felt directly by the workforce that drives Sacramento's economy.

We respectfully urge the council to prioritize a clear framework that is objective and feasible to implement, one that enables rather than inhibits the production of missing middle housing.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Next speaker is Aaron.

Following Aaron is Alyssa Lee, then Troy Sankey, then Kurt Ping.

Good evening, members of the council.

My name's Aaron.

I'm a member of Strong Sac Town and a resident of District 4.

I'm speaking to oppose the uh wording of the legislation as written.

Um of the core tenets of Strong Sack Town is to take the next smallest step.

Uh we see a lot of housing being built around Sacramento, these large complex developments that cost you millions of dollars.

Those are great.

It is adding to the housing supply, but I believe that removing the wording regarding bark bulk controls in this legislation is the next smallest step that Sacramento could take to improve the livability of this region.

Thank you.

Next speaker is Alyssa and Troy.

Hi, good evening, Council.

My name is Alisa Lee.

I live in District 4 in Boulevard Park slash New Era Park, and um I am also a member of Strong Sack Town.

Um I echo the letter submitted by House SAC, and in general, been really really excited about the progress of our missing middle housing uh policy and um celebrated the interim ordinance passing.

I would like council to direct staff to keep um the language of the original ordinance um while removing those bulk control standards and not add these new width and depth restrictions on top of the existing setbacks in those FAR 1.0 areas, which it should be emphasized that FAR 1.0 is the is the uh designation for 80% of the city.

So this would be a significant um restriction.

Um I want to talk about the the idea of the bulk control, and uh I think really this comes down to an aesthetic preference.

There um, and I think uh there's a lot of six plexus, three-story buildings in the neighborhood I live in.

Um my friends just hosted a house party in the backyard of one of them, and they co-hosted that house party with their neighbors who live in the building with them.

Um the form of a building does not dictate what makes a neighborhood livable, enjoyable, a community area, and I think um really at the core of wanting these restrictions on the roof height on the Eve height, excuse me, um, is a sense that six-story building or sorry, six plexus on three story buildings apartments aren't as good of homes as a single family home.

And I think that's just simply not true.

And we should really look at what kinds of homes are people already living in enjoying in our historic city.

Um six buses are historic, and wonderful community happens there right now today, and they're just as valid as people who live in single family homes.

Thank you.

Next speaker is Troy Sankey, then Kurt Peng, then Varvin Aurora.

Hi, Council, my name is Troy.

Um D4 district and um member of Strong Sack Town.

Um I want to point out that it's rare that a single decision can become a solution for so many problems at the same time.

I'm talking about the housing crisis, the structural budget deficit, the heat islands that we in our city, the food deserts in our city, car dependency, climate change, segregation, traffic, lack of accessibility, erosion of local culture.

The decision is simple.

Allow traditional sixplexes and triplexes everywhere by right.

Stacked triplexes have stood across Sacramento's central city for over a century.

They're proven in simple construction that delivers affordable rents without subsidies.

Yet the 24-foot EVE cap being proposed would restrict sixplexes and triplexes in the vast majority of the city.

Furthermore, width and depth restrictions should not be incorporated.

Sacramento can't maintain the infrastructure it already has.

Letting traditional stacked sixplexes fill existing neighborhoods, ads, homes, and tax base without adding new streets and pipes.

These streets and pipes are our city's biggest maintenance liabilities by far.

That's fiscal common sense, which is more needed than ever in Sacramento.

And uh this one's for Opticos.

Uh, thanks for all the work that you've done across the nation to usher in a new age of missing missing middle housing.

Your MO, however, is to disguise multifamily housing as single family homes, and that's needed in many places to quell dissent.

I really do get it.

It's understandable.

Uh but here in Sacramento, we can just cut to the chase.

Our our income normalized rental market is now more expensive than New York City, and according to Redvin, our starter homes are almost half a million dollars.

So we've got way bigger problems distracting us, don't worry.

Thank you.

Next speaker is Kurt Ben Varvin.

Oh, we'll start when I we'll start timing when I talk.

Okay.

Hi, my name is Kurt.

Uh I am a resident of the Midtown neighborhood in District 4.

I want to start by commending city staff for their hard work, and today I'm here to kind of express some concern about the revisions to the missing middle housing ordinance.

Um to start off, I think the in-term ordinance hasn't been really effective.

You know, statistics for what?

34 submitted, 22 approved, and the largest is mainly duplexes.

And that's mostly because of the bulk control rules, and so for that reason, we should do away with that in the new revision.

And so for that reason, we should do away with that in the new revision.

And in the new revision, the bulk control rules kind of came back in specifically the you know 24 24 feet height limit on the ease and the pitch roof and the house scale development standards.

And you know, I'm not against pitch roofs.

I think they can look great, but I just don't think it should be kind of mandated or kind of a stated preference.

We could allow it, people can build it if they want, but you know, we should just list the height to 35 feet, let developers build you know what they want, flat roofs, pitch roofs, whatever, can pencil and work out, and you know, that that run its course instead of arbitrarily restricting essentially buildings the two swords hall and you know making feasible the triple deckers and six boxes that we sorely need in this kind of state of crisis that our city faces right now with rising rents due to lack of affordable housing options and lack of housing supply.

So overall, I think you know, we should do away with the depth and width requirements and height requirements that are kind of born out of an aesthetic um kind of stance and move towards a simpler, more streamlined missile middle missing middle zoning code that can enable these new housing ties to be built.

Thank you.

Your comments, Varvin Aurora, then Janisa Peterson.

I have six more speakers.

Council members, I admire the work of the staff immensely.

Uh, but I think the staff has accidentally misread the recommendations of Tony's firm Opticos.

Opticos did a survey and found that three-story buildings with a width of four 40 and 50 feet, 40 to 50 feet that are seen are seen as more compatible in the neighborhood with single-story homes than two-story, 100 feet wide buildings.

They are saying three-story buildings, 40 to 50 feet wide are compatible.

Their founder, Dan said that the vertical heights up to three stories is often ignored by the eye.

The Journal of American Planning Association and Tony, your colleague Dan again, both literally argued that side setbacks are more useful for light and air than height.

And he argues that depth is completely irrelevant.

So what are we doing here?

Why are we going against researchers and leading planners and architects?

Where are you finding these single-family lots with 100 feet wide, you know, frontage?

I'm not able to find them, they rarely exist.

And now, Vice Mayor, I want to speak directly with you about our beloved district three.

Look at our district's map.

FAR 1 was the FAR2.

We barely have any FAR2.

On Northgate Boulevard, on Truxville, we have a little bit of truck soul, but really nothing else.

This will not give us the density we need.

Is the grid the only place that deserves walkability?

The one that deserves tax dollars.

You know, we want our from your conversations with entertainment venues, they tell you that we come where there's population density, where there's economies of scale.

You know, that's what Trader Joe says to us.

They open in places where people have different incomes of levels of income.

We want Dob Golf, we want Doku, we want mom and pop stores, we want our Daco Plaza to be backed every night.

And then we want crunch fitness so people can burn off the galleries they this place.

I urge you to guide stuff to make sure that D3 and all other places are not just for single family homeowners by just removing the restrictions to build density.

Thank you.

Denisa Peterson and Connor Finney.

Hello.

I'm Genessa and I live in District 3.

Uh I've spent most of my career as a junior high school and high school teacher.

And after dedicating most of my career to teaching and now to programming, I want to build a very small, as a very small developer with the little savings that I have.

And I was part of the small developer workshop that the planning department organized, and thank you very much for that opportunity.

Um they taught me, they taught us about the missing middle housing interim ordinance, and I got really excited about this.

I imagine that I will buy a lot and make a sixplex or maybe an eightplex, and I will live in one of these units and hopefully find low-income, maybe section eight renters for the other units.

And I went out and started looking for lots, primarily in North Sacramento, because that's where I want to live.

However, I found that most available lots that were vacant for many years, they were very expensive.

And the old owners bought them for very cheap, but they were paying so little in property tax that there was no real reason for them to sell at a competitive price.

These are small lots.

We're talking between 3,000 and 4,000 square feet.

And to create the number of units I envision, I need to fill the lot completely.

But then I was told that because neighboring properties had huge front setbacks, I would have to have big setbacks.

Then I found out that I would need to have six 400 to 600 square feet for open space.

This meant that I was limited to a very small building area.

Then I found that even on FAR2 lots, trying to aim for six to eight units with the sliding FAR scale meant that I could only use maybe a FAR one or 1.25 ratio of space on these lots.

So my units would have to be very small.

The final nail in the coffin was when I found that I could not even build three stories.

Bull control made it very hard to make floor plans that allow people to stand comfortably on the third floor.

And the new proposed thank you for your comments.

Your time is complete.

Our next speaker is Connor Finney, then Paul Memore just want to start by uh thanking uh Vice Mayor and Council for hearing us all out today.

Very much appreciate it.

Also want to uh you know state my appreciation to staff for all their hard work.

Um however, I think the appro uh proposed amendments to the missing middle ordinance really misses the mark, and I think more or less represents a downzoning from the interim ordinance.

You can actually build less than what they are proposing uh than what currently exists.

Uh I could reiterate what a lot of people have already said about the problems with these proposed changes, but instead of that, I think I just kind of want to humanize it a little bit.

Um I grew up in California, I went to California public schools.

Um my partner, uh, who I am planning on moving in with in a couple months, uh, also grew up in California, went to public schools.

Uh I work in public service for a climate agency.

My partner is a research scientist for UC Davis.

And we are talking about, you know, getting married, starting a family.

And one thing keeps coming up over and over again, and that's housing costs.

Are we going to be able to afford rent in the city?

Are we going to be able to afford to buy in the city?

Uh and uh what we aren't talking about is oh man, like I I hope that if they build a plex, it'll it'll look like a like a craftsman home.

Um that's not part of uh our calculus at all.

Our calculus uh should be can we afford it?

And the proposed changes as is uh are really primarily concerned with aesthetics.

They are not concerned with whether or not young families can put down roots, and uh I would encourage you to uh more or less reject them and support uh more permissive uh development standards so these things can actually be built in house families.

Thank you.

Good evening, Vice Mayor and Council members.

Um thank you for your service.

I'm Paul Minard.

I'm the chair of the AIA Central Valley chapter housing task force.

We appreciate the thoughtful approach staff is initiating to codify the missing middle housing ordinance and modify development standards in which to address some concerns that have been raised by others.

We believe the setbacks proposed to replace some of the bulk control measures will not unduly complicate getting three-story structures built in areas with an FAR one since the three-story building can't cover more than a third of the site.

The effect these setbacks may have on the buildable area will be marginal.

We understand that triplexes and triplexes and fourplexes have not been built under the interim missing middle housing ordinance because they are governed by the California Building Code, which is much more difficult and costly to comply with than the California Residential Code, under which single family homes and duplexes are built.

Members of our chapter are working with the AIA California to get the state legislature to work on changing this.

Um we propose an alternative to be considered to the unpredictability of discretionary decision making of director level hearings for projects that exceed objective standards used at the staff level.

Such projects are most likely to be proposed in the residential areas that are within one half mile of a transit station, areas within parts of Land Park, Curtis Park, and East Sacramento, which may appropriately densify over time, not overnight.

Rather than having a discretionary decision-making process to address this, we suggest an objective alternative of not allowing any new project to be more than 10 feet taller than an adjacent residential structure affecting such a look next door policy could also be used to keep new projects from blocking solar exposure.

Thank you for your comments.

Your time is complete.

Our next speaker is Nate and then Deb Caden.

Hello, everyone.

My name is Nate.

I'm here in a personal capacity today.

In the ordinance being proposed for you.

Uh reason.

Hi, Tony.

It's been a while.

Opticos is the gold standard, is that they do darn good work across the country.

You can look at all of their other projects that they've done nationwide and throughout California, and I think you're gonna find that there's a very consistent point, and it's a counterpoint to the I think the other person's at it's not disguising the homes so much as it's about livability and compatibility.

Obviously, affordability is a big issue, but maintaining the bulk control, I think is a fundamental aspect to the indelible changes that you're making that are gonna last for generations.

The Victorian homes that have been carved up and lived in and four plexus and whatnot, they were built decades and decades ago and they look darn good, and there's a reason people like that.

Additionally, I would also like to say that as you add density, you've got to add more parks.

You know, there's got to be some sort of proportional ratio as more people come in.

It'd be lovely to copy and paste McClatcher McKinley or even land parks and other places, it's just not happening.

And so, as more folks come through, you're gonna need more large-scale parks that are fully vetted out there.

Lastly, if you go back to page 37 of 59, you'll note that all of those images did show tons of trees and landscaping, and that's gonna be fundamental.

Landscaping is what's gonna make a lot of these projects fit into the existing community, and by maintaining that private open space, that setbacks and landscaping, you're gonna get all the trees.

I mean, that's what we're looking at mainly here, right?

Is pictures of trees before city hall, and that's gonna be reflective as these communities are built out.

And then lastly, please make it very clear how the measurements to transit are there.

Is it as the crow flies?

Because sometimes that half mile or whatnot, you've got an intervening road with no crosswalks or whatnot, and it can be a little more difficult.

So please make sure that's precisely identified and really lean into that LUP 6.4, the neighborhood does to consider is a broad one.

And so further defining those.

Good evening, council.

Uh, my name is Dov Caden.

I'm the vice chair on the planning and design commission here at the city, and I agree with all the fantastic comments that came before me.

But um, just to take a step back here, you know, we we've been at this for a few years now.

I think in in the lead up to the general plan um adoption, you know, this this body took, I think, a really courageous act to um, you know, uh allow for more affordable housing types across the entire city.

And I know many of you for were here for that decision, and I think there was very real concern um, you know, for members of the public that this was going to completely transform neighborhoods overnight, right?

That we would see you know backlash in neighborhoods that were not ready for that change.

And then when it came to actually hammer out some of the development standards about seven months later in the interim ordinance, um council had this really big debate about you know whether to sort of slightly walk that back a little bit, apply these restrictive bulk control standards that you know make these three-story buildings really infeasible.

And and by the way, this is something that none of the other cities that are kind of implementing really successful missing middle reforms that are actually seeing units are doing.

This is a city of Sacramento thing.

And I think it was close, but I think council decided that let's leave that bulk control in there.

Let's let's see how it plays out.

Um we'll come back, we'll tweak things, we'll fix things if we need to.

And we're a year and a half in, and we've seen uh not a single project between three and twenty units.

That was the entire point of the ordinance.

Um, you know, by the city's own analysis, more than three quarters of the market feasible units that was supposed to be created under this ordinance were in that three to eight unit range.

And we haven't seen a single one.

And so I I think we have to take that pretty seriously.

I think we have to, you know, what we have in the interim ordinance is clearly not working.

And I think we need to be thinking about how we can make this thing more flexible, not less flexible.

And the easiest thing that we can do to make it more flexible to allow for it is to allow for these simple three-story buildings, no bulk control, no width, no depth requirements, none of the pitch roof requirements, just a really simple to understand code that allows for small-scale builders to have the thank you for your comments.

Your time is complete.

So, Vice Mayor, we have no more speakers on this item.

Okay.

Thank you so much to everyone that came out.

I think that's what makes Sacramento so it's such a fun place to live where people are so passionate about housing and our housing crisis here in California and doing more to be able to address that affordability piece so that we can all pursue the American dream.

So thank you guys so much for your advocacy.

Um with that being said, we have Councilmember Maple, first punched up to seek.

Thank you, Madam Vice Mayor.

Thank you for the presentation and for the thoughtfulness that's gone into this.

I know this is actually a really exciting moment that there's been all this work that's been done over many years now on the general plan update and missing middle.

And I just think it really shows that we've done we've done so much that you all have done so much to improve where we're at as a city and our housing and also help us comply with some of the state laws that are coming down.

And so it's actually really exciting that we're here.

Uh, even though there's minor disagreements on it on a few things, I think that's the way that I'm viewing it, is it's overall very positive, but there's a couple things that we can tweak around the edges.

Um and so I do have a couple questions for staff, whoever is most appropriate.

Um so, as was mentioned by some of the speakers about a year and a half ago, we had a whole debate up here about bulk control, and and ultimately ended up um, you know, going keeping it in, and then now we're here a year and a half later, and it it seems that the recommendation is to basically remove bulk control.

Is that accurate?

Yes, and the areas with FAR2 remove it, and then and the areas with FAR one replace it with a different standard of um allowing a third floor and a pitched roof.

And and what's the rationale for for for removing that for those FARs?

In FAR2, the rationales they're closer to transit, so looking at general general plan policies to increase intensity there and allow upper missing little housing.

And is it um are we doing this in order to comply with SB79, for example, or is it just something that we're recommending to make it easier to build?

Um, not necessarily to comply with SB79 just to increase intensity in your transit while also in the MMH zones.

Okay.

Um and so one of the concerns that I have, and I I heard this from some of the speakers, and I said this um during my my briefing as well, is that you know we have now we're now saying, hey, let's move away from bulk control in this area because we're recognizing I think that there's some challenges with it.

But what it feels like some of the suggestions with the width and the depth in the attic requirements is that we're just kind of creating a different kind of bulk control in a way with these restrictions.

Is that how you view it, or do you have different perspective?

Yeah, thank you.

Um council member Maple.

The um Tony Perez from Opticos Design.

Can you hear me here so I don't have to get close?

Okay, all right.

Yeah, the idea, first of all, the attic and the third story pitched roof, that's not required.

It's simply if you wanted to build a third story in an area of 1.0 FAR, which is right now dominated by one and three story houses, a lot of one-story houses.

It it was our recommendation that in those kinds of places, if you built a third story, it would be with under a pitched roof.

Not that a pitched roof or third story are required.

Quite the opposite.

So uh the and I'm not saying you're saying that.

I think there's some I've heard some speakers talk about it as required, and it is not the requirement to pitch the roof and to put that third story under the roof volume is simply if you wanted to do a third story in those one-story primarily one-story environments.

Got it.

Um that's really helpful.

And I but I also think um just speaking broadly about what I've heard over this council over the last few years, what I've heard coming down from the state, and probably more to come in terms of more legislation.

We can only assume from some of the delegate the legislative delegation focused on housing, that this is uh just the beginning of some of the new requirements who may come down to cities.

Um the overall sentiment that that I have heard is that we're trying to um increase density of housing in neighborhoods, um, let's say maybe in particular in neighborhoods where that have maybe single family or or duplexes that are right now very hard for people to get access to because they're very expensive.

Um it's very it's hard to buy a single family home or duplex in the city of Sacramento, and so a lot of young people in particular feel priced out of these areas.

And so the thought is is what if we could build, what if we could add density in a way that is uh more gentle, right?

We're not gonna see a writ large change of many of our neighborhoods through these ordinances.

So, in fact, we've we've seen that in the interim ordinance.

We haven't seen uh massive increase in the uh or influx in some of these developments.

It's really about, in my view, how do we make it as easy as possible to do some of these changes so that slowly over time we can see maybe a three-story here and there that adds some more density to neighborhoods, and so that's really kind of where my concern comes in when we um are adding additional restrictions in that go beyond uh what we could be doing uh in our interim ordinance.

Uh and so that was also my concern with bulk control in general a year and a half ago.

Uh and so I'm just I I I the I remain having those same concerns where um I I'm hearing from small developers in my in my community, they come to us often about the challenges we heard from um the young woman who came up here about yes, I see.

Thank you.

But hearing directly from someone's experience about trying to build and how hard it is and the hoops that you have to jump through and being told at every no at every turn and and then your project being infeasible is actually a story that I hear a lot of in my in my capacity, and I'm sure maybe others on this dais do as well.

And so I I think the way that I think about this is we need to be changing that that culture to make it easier to build.

Um again with the acknowledgement that this is not going to be some scary change that everything's gonna change overnight.

We already know that, we've seen that.

Um so okay.

So one of the other questions I have uh is so around uh raising the height limits for FAU FAR 2.0 to foreign advisories.

Um can you talk a little bit about that recommendation, like where that comes from and the thought process behind it.

So if I understand your question, you're asking about why we are recommending more height in the F the 2.0 F AR.

Is that correct?

Yes.

Okay.

Yeah, so again, it's it's been our understanding going through the um 2023 studies that that we did with the community and with the city staff uh to um establish the ideas for missing middle in Sacramento and where this worked and where it didn't.

Uh a key aspect of that was this house scale concept, which is that you know, missing middle is not a new idea.

What is new is trying to get it to happen again, right?

And easily, as you're saying, if you look in older neighborhoods, which you have as well here, all over the country, these buildings were look like houses, not aesthetically, the size, their width, their depth, their height.

They look like two story houses, one story houses.

They just happen to have more than one unit in them.

And so that idea uh we that's why we are recommending the types of uh controls that you see uh for the 1.0.

In the 2.0, in order to achieve close to 2.0 on the parcels where it's mapped, that that has to go out the window.

And so we're looking at three, four, and in some cases, some of our testing showed five or six stories or seven stories, depending on the parcel size in order to achieve two point zero.

So that's why we're saying three three to four story, what we call upper missing middle, that makes a lot of sense in those areas that that should be the base.

And then in some areas you're actually gonna be able to achieve even more based on the parcel size.

Okay, that that's really helpful.

Um then uh I guess one of the other questions I have is around um staff time and resources.

So um, you know, make if we were to move forward with some of the changes that are recommended uh being recommended now, it seems that we will then with these new restrictions have more of a deliberative process, more maybe perhaps more of a public process.

Um, and so and then we also have, of course, your contract with Opticos.

Um, how much cost does that add on from the city perspective?

Do we have any estimates of that based on projected number of applications or whatever that may be Mr.

Pace, I'm so sorry to make you come up here after your retirement.

Not at all.

Uh this is one of my favorite projects.

Uh if I understand your question, I think it's about the uh discretionary review process and and how much cost does that add for uh for the city or we obviously don't know uh how many applications will come in, but we must have some kind of projection of what that will be because how do how else are we gonna be able to make sure that we have enough staff time and resources to do that?

What I would say is that the overwhelming majority of uh housing development projects that come to the city of Sacramento currently are processed through our existing uh discretionary staff level design review process.

And so um, you know, we don't have a large number of projects that go through the purely ministerial review process that the state has established.

We're starting to see that grow a little bit bit by bit.

Um but most developers like the flexibility of being able to uh deviate, you know, the the standards, whether they're the ones we've developed for our ministerial process or the ones the state has laid out for the various state mandated uh you know ministerial approval processes are pretty rigid, and so uh developers like the flexibility to you know customize and and develop a project that works for them and works for their site.

And so the discretionary process that we have works very well.

It's a it doesn't really take significantly more time.

Uh in some cases it can take less time because staff can agree with an applicant that what they're proposing looks great and go ahead and approve it as opposed to you know, oops, sorry, it doesn't meet the checklist, you gotta change it and resubmit and try again uh with the ministerial process.

So I don't see this as adding any cost from a process point of view, um, but having the options for uh someone who has a project that will fit well within the ministerial process and wants to use that process, that'll work for them and for those that would like the disc the flexibility of a discretionary process.

I think the question here for tonight is um whether or not to allow the third story uh without the the being under the eaves uh you know idea that is is included in in staff's recommendation as a default way to develop or not.

And currently it's proposed by staff that if you wanted to build straight up without having that third floor in the attic with dormers uh without having that kind of configuration, that would require the discretionary review on a case-by-case basis to to propose that and have it evaluated as opposed to being um something that would be automatically approved under a ministerial uh proposal again for that you know, straight up three-story building.

Okay, and thank you.

And so for on that note, so it sounds like I hear you say that you know we hear we have developers that actually like this process, it allows them flexibility.

So they would still have the ability to do that anyway, right?

Yes.

So then what do we how many projects are we seeing propo whether it be uh applications or proposals that are on the other side of this?

How many are we seeing that are three stories straight up that don't comply with the what's being recommended here?

Is this actually a problem that we're seeing that we that we feel like we need to add in restrictions for?

I wouldn't say that it's a problem we're seeing.

I think uh in fact, a number of people tonight suggested that the zoning was the limitation, but I think that actually the building code is the limitation right now.

Now, if that changes, and as you heard tonight, there is an effort to change the building code to make it easier to build multi-unit projects, small multi-unit projects, um, then if that changes, then we may see a greater appetite uh you know for development uh of you know three-story buildings.

Uh you know, the there's a number of factors to that, but right now the the building code for one and two unit dwellings is easier to comply with, and so that's why we tend to see one and two unit dwellings predominate, and we don't see too many three to eight unit buildings um you know in the missing middle areas of the city.

Once you get into the multi-family type category, it tends to be bigger projects because the complexity of complying with those building codes needs economies of scale and and bigger bigger projects to make than pencil.

Okay, that's helpful.

Thank you.

Um I'll just have a couple comments and then I'll I'll pass it over.

Um, just generally speaking, taking it up 30, 50,000 square feet is one of the things that I've heard the most uh in the last four or five years um since you know running for office and being here and still today from my constituents is a deep, deep, deep concern about the ability to find and keep housing that they can afford, period.

Uh it's really challenging.

It's especially challenging at the two ends of the scale for young people and for seniors.

And so I just really remain concerned about adding additional barriers at all to density and housing development in our city, especially when we see that um only more is coming down from the state.

I'm not saying that as like you know, the the threat.

It's true, um, it's happening, and there's only more being discussed.

And so I worry that in our efforts um to do things that are focused on aesthetics, which is really what I gather mostly from this is making sure it fits in with the neighborhood that already has existing buildings of a certain size, um, that we might end up in a place where we're behind the ball, and then we're gonna have to be back here in a year because there'll be more state laws that we now have to comply with, and then we have to change the code again.

Because what the the spirit of what I hear coming from the legislature, and even I've heard on this dias over the last several years is that we want more, we want more density.

We want to we want to make it easier to build.

We're hearing challenges from developers and from community members.

Um and so I just I I worry that this uh that we'll just be back at the drawing board again in a year.

Uh, if we don't just try to be a little bit more bold and and and go a little further, I think we can.

Um, and so I I'm really leaning towards um you know keeping our interim uh ordinance as is and removing bulk control.

Um I think that that makes a lot of sense to me.

And if we run into a place where we're receiving a mountain of applications, which I actually would love to see.

I'd love to see more applications for permanents to build three three stories and build more density.

But if we're getting there, and and it is just absolutely a problem, the way that they're designed, it's out, it's you know running rampant and people are concerned about the way that their neighborhoods look, then I think we can readdress that.

But I I'm worried about adding in restrictions at the outset and really prevent making it harder to build these types of things when we already know it's challenging.

We're not seeing the applications in the first place because it's already hard.

The building code makes it hard.

Um, I don't think the city needs to make it harder.

So um that's just that's just my take.

Um I I would uh definitely support a motion like that, but in the in the meantime, I'll hear from my colleagues first before uh doing anything like that.

So thank you.

Yeah, so this is uh provide direction for city staff.

Well, then that is my direction.

Thank you.

Sounds good.

Okay.

All right, sounds good.

Uh council member Kaplan.

Thank you, Vice Mayor.

Um, I I echo the same sentiments, uh, concerns and comments that council member uh Maple put forward.

So if you as you're keeping track with direction, um I think we are we are fairly similar and what we're looking at.

You know, I looked at the recent community survey that that we did, um, you know, and those that were surveyed, it really is about housing affordability and creating affordable, realistic housing solutions, especially for our most vulnerable residents, and then I come from a kind of personal perspective is how I look at things that as we look at width and depth requirements, I want to add humanity to it.

So my first house that I bought in South Nathomas 25 years ago, I did when I was 26, making 46,000 a year, and it was a 917 square foot two bedroom, two bath, zero lot property line.

Would these changes prevent that from happening again?

That is that's I look at that because right now the cost has gone skyrocketing.

I got the opportunity to get a uh down payment first-time homeowner loan that went on as a second, and that's how I got into the house uh having no money saved for that, but that allowed me to buy my second house, which was there were only four feet between the houses, two story, three bedroom, two and a half bath house before I upgraded to the house I'm in with my husband.

But what I'm hearing is with this generation, I got lucky in my 20s, and there were things available.

Those in their 20s now and early 30s don't have that same capability, and so I look at when my district has the most amount of open space.

A lot of it is zoned commercial, but there's a fair amount of housing.

I want to see not one type, but a mix, because that's what makes a community better.

And so with the width and depth restrictions, that that that won't allow my 917 square foot house.

That won't allow my uh 16 square foot, you know, two-story, just one step above a zero lot property line house that would actually work for a family and work for young professionals, and it actually creates a sense of affordability that we don't necessarily have, and I'm not sure because my driveway was like this on my second house that that I was probably less than 10 feet from the street was my front door, and side yards were maybe about four feet, and that probably equals an 80% depth, and and so I don't want to restrict that no matter what your FAR is that should be allowed citywide, truly honestly, and when we when we travel, and I have traveled all over Europe and the United States.

You know what people love in neighborhoods when things aren't cookie cutter the same, but I also get the concerns about aesthetics and and so I don't know what the happy medium is because maybe there is when we've got our Victorians downtown that you can't fully radically change things, but and there should be some incremental when we look at new housing development coming in.

But I think if we remove you know bolt control and we move some of the you know restrictions on aesthetics, it actually puts the requirements on us on council for transparency with our community because when the community says they're concerned, the minute uh agency Sacramento informs me something is out there, I know my community wants to see it because I have a specific group that looks over every housing design uh and project that comes in and gives feedback, and and I think then that puts the more of an incumbents upon us for transparency in in that regard.

Um so question what would be the impact if a percentage was adopted uh on the width and depth requirements on the construction of new housing on small lots.

So question what would be the impact if a percentage was adopted on the width and depth requirements on the construction of new housing on small lots.

Thank you, Councilmember Kaplan.

First of all, we're not proposing a percentage.

That's been stated in a few letters that I've read and some comments that we've heard at the March meeting and tonight.

We never recommended a percentage.

We are simply recommending that in certain cases for the for the house scale buildings in 1.0 FAR areas, and maybe that gets worked out further as the staff works through the summer in community engagement.

But right now, that's what we're recommending that the width and depth apply there.

And the reason is that a couple reasons.

People are concerned about what's going in down the street and how their the character of their neighborhood is changing.

That's where these recommendations are coming from, that kind of experience.

So it's not that we uh and I'm not suggesting you're saying this, so just taking this opportunity to say it.

It's it's not that we're we're recommending that Sacramento somehow offer less to its citizens and its residents.

We're actually saying we're agreeing with you about providing more housing and doing that.

We're simply just saying that in certain areas, it's been our experience, and also the 23 2023 housing um studies that that Opticus did with city staff and with you all in the community, there was a lot of outreach, and what we understood there was that in those areas that there was concern about buildings being too big.

And so that's where we're coming from.

If, however, it's a as I've mentioned to the city staff several times, it's a policy decision by you all that no, the the base building is going to be a three-story building going forward.

Well, that's a policy decision, and that's what it is, and we and you we write rules for that.

But the the width and depth has been mentioned many times tonight, and it's simply coming from that perspective.

And the second one is that the width and depth make a lot of sense when somebody comes in and says, Well, I got a deal on this lot, and I think I can get the owner to sell me the next lot, and I can get two lots, and I can make a bigger project.

And people rarely put two buildings next to each other, they usually make one bigger building over two lots, or if they gathered more lots, they the building grows larger.

And so the build the width and depth requirements are trying to uh deal with that.

And maybe that isn't a concern here, but it is in most cities.

So that's where it's coming from.

Yeah, just Greg Sandlin, planning director, additional clarification.

So let's say you have a hundred-foot deep lot.

Um we want the footprint of that building to be similar in house scale to the surrounding homes.

So it would be maybe a maximum depth of 50 or 60 feet.

But for small lots, we would allow like for just like SB 684, we'd allow the lot to be built out in that case.

Um it's it's really looking at what is the appropriate height and scale and footprint of these buildings citywide in all R1 or whatever they're gonna be designated on in the future through this project.

Um what is that appropriate scale and size?

And and thank you.

I I I do appreciate that, but it was also stated um approximately 80% of the city is FAR one, which then if we have these, then how are we actually getting there if 80% of the the land and you know I'm district one and a majority of North Nathomas is FAR1, and the two and higher have yet to be developed that are not there, but I also know next to me in my west shore neighborhood, there are three-story houses.

I don't hear any complaints about how it does or doesn't fit in, and it's next to single story, two-story, three-story.

So I hear community concerns, and I think a lot of it sometimes comes from single family residences that might be a one-story, like, and if they get surrounded by three stories, how does that look?

But um that's coming from people my age who have a house who are settled and they're worried about their value of their property, and and I need to take a step back and put myself in in my 26-year-old shoes and say, gosh darn, I wish those who had houses and properties understood that I deserve the same opportunity that they did.

And I'm okay if a single family resident in a FAR one gets torn down in a two or three story comes in place, and are any of these restrictions potentially making it so that's not possible because I want to make our our three plexes and our fourplexes affordable, and I want to see them in the suburbs of our neighborhoods, not just downtown.

You know, I my my brother and sister-in-law live in San Diego in an amazing, beautiful new community community, all three story houses, and they are top of the line, really nice, but as they were starting their family, that's what they can afford, and it actually has allowed them to grow into it as as their family, you know, grew.

And I look at that and I go, I want Sacramento to have that flexibility that that we get there.

And then um I do remember a gentleman that made a comment.

So I think wherever we end up with, I would really like to make it bullet point simple standards.

Um, for examples, I'm not saying this is what city should do, but like Spokane, Washington has like bullet points, no maximum density on sites of less than two acres, 1200 square foot minimum lot, 65% lot coverage maximum, 40 foot height limit, 10 foot front sent back, three foot side setback, um, DADUs get reduced set back.

Like I whatever we come up with, I think we owe it to those who want to be small developers and community members that there's quick bullet points because if we're doing staff review or discretionary review, then it just there you go.

And and when we look at what council member uh pluckybaum and the mayor have done with streamlined Sacramento, is this streamlining, or is it taking us back?

These are questions that I have that I haven't fully heard that we are we are answering that I hear this sounds good, but in practice, we haven't seen the housing built, so I know that was something as I use my hands, um, that we want to do, but how is this actually accomplishing the goal?

Um and then, as you as you know, and so Tom, as you retire, this is this is my hope, and I will come lobby and help you is changing state law to allow for single story, the single stair walk up straight up.

Like, we gotta go back to that.

I understand the reasons for public safety and fires uh worries about that, but I think a lot of things have changed since that was put into place, and so I am all in, and however, we need to as the city of Sacramento to be proactive in that.

Seattle's gotten rid of it, and I went to college in Seattle, and I freaking love the density and the mixed housing and all different types.

Why can't we, you know, be like that?

So, however, we get there.

Um, and then uh one of the questions was on uh SB 79 when we look at transit, what is the legal definition of how we measure a half a mile for SB79, it's measured as the bird flies, as the crow flies.

And so that's what I thought.

I just wanted to make sure that was that was that was clarified in that regard.

Um and then um can you explain uh once again just to clarify when discretionary review comes into play with um missing middle housing ordinance?

How is it streamlining?

From what do we have now?

How is it streamlining?

Greg Salon here again.

Um, their interim ordinance we have essentially a tent, and um with an interim ordinance, we expanded the size of the tent, but we put some hard parameters, some very difficult findings to deviate and go outside of the tent.

So what we're pivoting to is more of a likely house typology approach, not so much of a tent, but also if you are exceeding any of our standards with length, height, roof, whatnot, then you would just get your normal deviation site plan and design review where you would have a hearing at the director level on a Thursday afternoon.

Um that way the public can weigh in.

There could be an appeal that stops that planning design commission doesn't keep on going.

Um but it gives a lot more flexibility than current interim ordinance that it's very hard to deviate from.

Okay.

Thank you.

I I appreciate that.

Um and then I would not be uh doing my job if I didn't mention because this is a little bit of the oxymoron, and I represent also an older part of the city of Sacramento that is concerned about how new development comes in and affects the character of the existing um neighborhood.

I don't know how and what the right way is of maybe with certain newer neighborhoods, there's some relaxed and older, very established neighborhoods, there's a little bit of flexibility.

I I just think sometimes when we try and look for a one-size-fits-all, it doesn't respect the different cultures and natures of our neighborhoods.

Um, but I also still want to allow for streamlining and building bulk, which I know is what I'm saying is a little bit of an oxymoron.

I just it's I hear from my Robla neighborhood that has a lot of housing coming in, but also if you look at like the Blaine Avenue project that came in where I am council member Dickinson is hearing a lot of complaints.

Um, and I would also say, just like how the panhandle is, you know, we did not see when it came in to my existing neighborhood of Nathomas Park because of sewer needing the pipeline to go down.

I now have new housing towering 10 feet over existing housing, and that should never happen.

You know, when you have a house that's been there 25-30 years, just by the nature we couldn't figure out, and sewer didn't have to talk to the city and the planning, and just by the nature of the slope of where the pipe in the sewer had to go and for the connection meant those houses were gonna be looking down on existing neighborhoods.

That's something I I that shouldn't happen, that that you know, we have to be aware um and catch.

So I don't know the answers I'm just bringing up.

Um you guys live and work this every day um and breathe this that maybe there is something innovative that other cities or jurisdictions have done that we can take into consideration.

And um I will leave it there because I know uh my fellow council members coming after me will fill in the gaps that I've missed.

Thank you so much.

Mayor Pro Tem Gera.

Uh thank you.

Thank you.

First, first of all, I I want to appreciate uh you know our staff's work here and Tom and whatnot.

I think today this is an example of the legacy you're building bringing, the fact that we have so many people involved in this.

When I was president of my neighborhood association, we were trying to draw people to be excited about um uh about planning and design, and now you have an entire organization, you know, how Sacramento that and strong section that that's what they do.

That's that's what they do for fun.

You know, that's what they do for you know for enjoyment.

So um, so I'm so first of all, let me just say I'm excited about that.

Um, you know, and I'm sure Dr.

Rob Wasmer, my my MPPA professor would be excited that is that that now we've created a new interest.

I think long and short, I think uh the interim ordinance um is serving us well.

Uh and the question becomes really focused around bulk uh bulk control.

Um and uh and you know, with all the respect to uh you know Mr.

Valencia and the building industry, I I don't believe that the building industry should have just a complete free-for-all.

Okay, we we do have some guidance and some controls.

Uh but I think the interim ordinance is is tried to strike that balance because we did a lot of that work.

Um my only direction uh is moving forward since this is in finale tonight, is to uh reach back out to uh uh to those neighborhood associations.

Uh some of the ones that were mentioned uh today as in supporting um the the changes.

I'd like to make sure that that they are involved in this conversation.

Uh because the question really became when we put in the bulk control ordinance, which is probably the most controversial piece of the interim ordinance, was we're not sure how it'll affect us.

So let's let's be let's uh let's uh what do you call it?

Trust but verify.

It's been a year.

Uh if in fact bulk control is a hindrance and it's a problem, then let's uh have that conversation again with our neighbors.

Okay, we live in the same village, so should we be working with our neighbors here?

Uh and then maybe flip it, you know.

Let's say, okay, if we remove bulk control, what what uh what are the um uh the dangers uh and what are the projects that are coming in that maybe have those negative impacts?

And I heard a lot of uh different issues, not just aesthetics, I mean some folks who uh have solar on their roofs, of folks who have their backyard and have designed it as like an urban garden, uh, we have an urban ag ordinance as well.

Now, in many of these locations, that's not gonna be the fit.

So I want to make sure that the approach we take uh uh uh and no policy is an absolute in my opinion.

Like this is why we're evolving, we're moving forward.

So uh my my only direction would be, you know, we have the interim ordinance.

Uh I've heard a lot of folks say that hey, this inner interim ordinance is working for us, uh, don't overcomplicate it.

Uh and then let's revisit the conversation on bulk control.

Let's get the staff and how Sacramento, the East Second Neighborhood Associations, uh, Allen Hurst and a bunch of the other ones who live along the what I've saw on the map.

It's people who live along the light rail line that are concerned about how this may affect.

And it may not affect them at all.

I mean, if you're you know on 39th Street, the um the only lot that I see available is on 39th near T, and that's by the freeway.

I mean, a a three-story house, it's not gonna, you know, whether you put a pitched troop up pitched roof on there is not gonna change anything there.

It's if it's gonna be a hindrance there.

In fact, you know, that's an ideal place where you want to maximize everything, that space there on on uh on that on the south side of the freeway there on that vacant lot.

Um so um so that's what that would be my direction uh as well.

Um now um uh and and uh if and if there if maybe there's and well the only thing I want to set on the table for staff is maybe there's a misunderstanding on how you're interpreting the proposal from what I'm hearing from um not only the builders but the the community members, the realtors.

Seems like there's a confusion about the the end goal.

So um uh so I I'd encourage you guys to r sit down again because it sounds to me like everyone has the same goal in mind, but is interpreting this policy very differently.

So uh as it is now, I want to continue on with the interim ordinance.

I really want to thank Hell Sacramento also for highlighting the question about the uh infill fee and uh and making sure that uh that conversation happened with our budget chair and and figuring out what what is how how is that scored in the budget?

But the infill fee is is uh is a critical incentive for us to be able to, where it's uh much more difficult to build, um, you know, we should be incentivizing in fill versus green field.

So I think that's an important piece.

So I want to thank Hal Sack for making highlighting that at the beginning of their uh their letter as well.

So I appreciate everyone and thank you, uh Vice Mayor.

Um for uh Councilmember Pluggy Baum.

Thank you, Vice Mayor.

I want to thank everyone for working on this and bringing this forward.

I know this is um a long, long process, a long time coming.

Greg, I'm having flashbacks on our trip to Portland a decade ago when we were looking at fourplexes, thinking about how to do exactly this kind of work.

Tom, I heard your comments earlier about the push and pull.

Uh I think this is a perfect uh example of exactly that kind of push and pull.

I want to recognize and thank uh how Sacramento and Strong Sac Towns in particular for pushing us.

Uh I uh uh really do appreciate your advocacy on this.

Uh we need you please uh keep fighting for housing in Sacramento.

To that point, um I'm gonna ask staff to pull us a little bit.

Um the bulk control, the setbacks.

You've you've heard uh plenty of discussion on that.

I want to uh associate myself and support uh a desire to be even more aggressive in our um uh increased uh opportunities for density in the city.

Um I agree uh with uh um comments about uh you know green space and the need for additional open space, park space.

Uh I don't think that needs to be uh setbacks or backyards.

I think that we can accommodate those kinds of uh green space uh opportunities uh through public spaces.

Um but if there's anything that we can do to uh reduce costs, streamline you've heard me say this so many times.

Um, you know, look, we don't have snow, we don't need pitched roofs, they're nice, they look pretty, but you know, flat roofs are fine and um make really cool rooftop decks.

So anything that we can do to um you know continue to move aggressively uh uh eliminating height restrictions, setback requirements, bulk control requirements, uh uh and more.

Um we we really do need to treat this uh like the crisis that it is and and get aggressive about what we can do in that built environment.

Thank you.

Thank you very much, Councilmember Pluggy Baum.

I'll take the chair prerogative as uh saying the rooftop decks are actually kind of a cool concept.

But anyways, yes.

Okay, uh Councilmember Dickinson.

Thank you, Tim.

Uh I think this is really uh quite simple.

We just want it all.

I do have other things to say.

I um uh I uh I I do think this is uh in many respects uh a needle threading exercise.

It is very difficult to try to uh reconcile increasing uh housing availability and affordability and preserve what other people see as neighborhood character uh and compatibility.

Uh and so uh uh for me I think it really uh requires uh uh uh a level of nuance in approach that um perhaps we're still striving to to uh to achieve.

Uh and uh starting with uh what uh councilmember Kaplan referred to with the the Blaine Avenue project, the whole planning staff is familiar with this, but in a in an area that is basically semi-rural with a 20-foot wide street and and on septic, we had a proposal uh on a piece of property for 15 units.

Uh it just it wasn't uh it wasn't a fit.

Uh and through the process that was that that was that was scaled back.

But uh I I do think that whether whether it's uh it's uh uh further uh uh gradation of uh the geography of the city, whether it's looking at uh I think as Greg and I have talked about the idea of whether there's infrastructure to support the proposal or or s or the area.

I mean in some form or fashion, I do think that there are there are a couple places in the city uh and and Robla would be one of those, or maybe portions of District 5 or District 6, District 7 as well, uh where uh perhaps there's a perhaps there's a somewhat different uh approach in in those areas.

I will say that uh as a as a general proposition, I I'm I'm very much in favor of trying to do uh what we can to increase the opportunity for uh uh for additional uh housing uh and um in a way that uh helps us to uh uh integrate the uh the uh uh long-standing uh uh and and relatively exclusive single-family uh neighborhoods.

I think that's most often achieved by having standards that mean you get a a product that that may increase density, may increase unit number, um, may serve the goals uh of the middle missing uh missing middle housing uh effort uh without overly uh uh affecting the the uh the character of the of the neighborhood.

That's the that's the needle threading.

And it seems to me that's what you have been trying to do with respect, especially to the to the FAR one uh areas uh of the city.

Uh I I would like to see a contrast as you go through further uh analysis.

I would like to see contrast of what it would what it would mean if you remove bulk control and you and you didn't have the the width and the depth uh limitations compared to when you do.

I think that a lot of this uh as we discuss it uh uh and the these terms is somewhat abstract.

And it's really our sensibility about it when we see it, does it work to meet the goals that we seek well fitting, however one might however one might define that.

Um so I think that uh that is certainly something that I would be interested in having more uh ability to to visualize.

Uh I know you gave us some uh pictures of houses and things in your in your presentation.

Um but you know, uh uh having something that is a visualization side by side uh, for example, as opposed to these are typical houses you see now, you see a two-story house.

Well, you know, two or three story can work next to one story as far as I I'm concerned.

Uh but it you know it's uh it has something to do with the way the way you uh end up with a finished product that makes makes it fit or not uh in a uh I think in a neighborhood.

So uh in that sense uh uh I would like to just have a more opportunity to get it to uh as I said a moment ago, visualize what these what these changes might might result in.

I do I do think that again in the needle threading category, what we can do to increase the certainty of time.

Nobody really talked too much about this.

I think it was in some of the correspondence, the certainty of time of getting through the process is uh a worthy uh effort because uh when you're talking about how much is going to cost you to undertake a project, knowing the amount of time it's going to take you uh is certainly a key factor.

And so uh I would be interested in, and that get uh this this also gets to the extent to which projects are subject to what kind of review.

To the to the extent that we can move more toward uh uh objective standards uh that allows us to reduce the need for uh discretionary review in concept, that that seems like a good thing to me.

Now, Greg, you were you were you you were talking about in uh instances in which actually having some level of review can or discretion can actually make it faster rather than slower.

So uh it would be um worthwhile to me to hear more about not necessarily in the moment, but as you go through the process of developing your ultimate recommendations.

Um but it but I do think that uh getting to time certainty is um is a worthy is a worthy goal.

Um it was it was I wanted to ask a question uh about SB 79 and uh see if I uh am clear on this.

What you are suggesting is both a local implementing ordinance and incorporating the I don't have it right in front of me, but the um height the height standards of that are in SB 79.

Is that correct?

Yes, we would add the loc the heights from SB 79 into the commercial and higher intensity residential zones, and then we'd also have an ordinance for every other zone where SB 79 applies, how those applications would be processed if they meet the state requirements.

So I'm just so do you uh the question really is do you need to do that?

Do you not if if you develop a local uh implementing ordinance, the whatever is in SB 79 also stands on its own, right?

Right.

The difference is um with the recommendation tonight in the commercial and higher intensity, they wouldn't have to meet all of SB 79's eligibility requirements, such as the affordability if we codify the heights locally.

Okay.

So you uh so you uh and is your hope to develop that and uh in the same time frame as you bring back the the missing middle?

Yeah, would be folded in with the broader zoning consistency work.

Okay, all right, because I think it would be important to see those in tandem uh actually.

The um the last thing uh that I want to just mention this evening uh is uh listening to the listening to the the comments, talking about this approach, having gone through some of the the uh uh effort we have with respect particularly to some of the applications, uh it has reaffirmed uh my belief in using form-based codes as opposed to use-based codes.

And uh it's probably a bridge too far right now with the staff resources that are available, but I I would love to see us take some part of of the city uh and approach it with a form-based code as opposed to a use-based code.

I think a lot of these issues related to height and depth and width uh uh would start to be far less significant if we were using a form-based approach approach as opposed to a use-based approach approach.

And so that to me would uh be worth examining for its utility in this world that we're trying to fashion where we're creating more housing and more housing that's affordable, but we're trying to maintain uh a um an attractiveness to to the landscape in total.

Um I do think uh uh as well, and I you know, you any time a lawyer says it's my last point, you know it's about three or four from the last point.

But but the one other thing I did want to want to mention was uh to me the ultimate uh value to concentrate on is what we can do proximate to transit corridors.

I mean that's that's really where we start to get not just at these issues of of affordability and evader availability and and the like, but we start to get at the environmental values.

We start to get at um the potential of congestion reduction.

We start to get at making areas more walkable.

We get uh uh a host of co-benefits when we really focus around our our uh travel corridors, but especially our our our transit corridors, and everything we can do to uh to encourage um uh to encourage development in those uh in those areas to me seem seems to be uh what should be the priority.

So thank you.

Thank you so much.

Councilmember Bain.

Thanks, Vice Mayor.

I will keep my comments quick because it's my birthday today, it's my birthday today, and I know my husband is watching this and was asking when I'm gonna be home because he has dinner for me.

So um, so first of all, I just I want to say thank you to city staff for all your hard work.

Um, and I'm just so proud of Sacramento again for being the first to pass our housing interim ordinance um so that we can begin building multi-housing units throughout our city.

Um but I know that being the first was actually not our goal, it was about getting it right.

Um, and that's why uh we're all here and having this conversation and we're committed to doing that in partnership with community.

And so I also just want to thank all the speakers who came out today, strong SAG Town, um, housing Sacramento, Sacramento Housing, um, and all the advocates that came today, uh, you know, giving accolades to the staff for their hard work, but also saying, hey, we want to push back a little bit um on some of these recommendations.

So just really appreciate all the hard work to get to this moment.

And um my comments are short because I just want to echo uh some of my colleagues, especially councilwoman maple, that I support much of her comments tonight.

I think we all know that we're in a housing crisis, and so anything we can do to create more flexibility, to build more housing, to build more duplex, fourplex, um the multi-family buildings is so necessary, and so I do support anything we can do at the local level to increase our housing supply.

I do just have one question for staff, because I know it's been 1.5 years since we passed the interim ordinance, and um I believe, and correct me if my wrong if I'm wrong, um, that we've had about 22 projects approved in our city.

How many applications have we received and how many projects have been approved and then my follow-up question was also um in addition to that as you're looking for the numbers is that um I don't know if we had I don't think I don't think I saw maybe a chart like where these projects have been approved.

Um just curious to know if there was any that has been approved in District 8 or 2 or 3 in kind of low income areas.

Yeah, so um as of March 25th, there's been 34 planning applications submitted, 22 approved, and eight in progress.

And then I don't have the exact numbers for council districts in front of me, but I would say I think most oh I do actually.

Um half of them have been in district two.

Um the next is district five, and then after that, district four, and then district three and district six.

I don't think we've seen one approved yet in district eight.

Okay, so there has not been one that has been approved in district eight.

Um not of as of last month.

Okay, well, I would love to see more uh you know being approved in district eight.

Um and I guess I asked this question also because I think for me, you know, I think it's important to make sure that you know, instead of restricting, we should be making it easier to build.

Um I think folks already know my position on supporting density, but something I just want to center again.

I think a lot of the conversation tonight have heard is that perhaps uh we're putting these restrictions because it's the aesthetic for me, it's not so much aesthetic, it's not even um right, because we need to build more.

I just I I just want to center, and I think I heard from one of the speakers.

I I just want to center folks, uh center what I've heard from community.

It's a concern I often hear as a councilwoman.

I am in big support of density and making sure that we do everything we can to build more housing, but I just do want to center residents uh in my community.

But I just do want to center residents in my community.

Um, is that I think one of their biggest concerns when we have this conversation is that yes, councilwoman, let's build more housing.

But as we build more housing, we also have to make sure that we deliver on the necessary amenities to support to support that uh increased density, right?

Um, and um, and I heard about you know green spaces, but I also want to talk about grocery stores and other essential services.

Um, and so for me to be able, I go out to the community and I always tell them my position on this, and their concern is always it's not so much aesthetic, but for residents in my district, it's can we make sure that we have amenities to grow with the density?

Um that's something that I often hear.

So I'm just saying I'm sharing that to the advocates as we're working together with city staff to make sure that we think through that piece in particular, because even with single families home in district three and district eight, families right now still struggle to get amenities, right?

And so I think as we're building this out and as we're thinking about the policy piece, it's really important to think about ensuring that we have amenities as we grow as a city as well.

Um and I know that we still have time to get this right because this is not a voting item.

There's still four more phases to this, y'all, right?

So we have the analysis which is happening right now, city staff is gonna hear from us.

Um, I think my you know, my position on this is that let's make it easier to build, let's make sure we're inlightment, obviously, with state policy, and let's make sure that there's amenities that grow with the housing.

Those are my priorities.

So I'm just putting it up that on record.

Um, but I really look forward to the next four phases.

I think the analysis piece, the community engagement, which um is gonna be really critical, all our neighborhood association, our advocates.

Um, and I think this fall we'll y'all will come back, let us know um all the things you heard.

We're gonna draft the ordinance, and hopefully by the winter, we're gonna approve um and adopt the final final ordinance.

So, really looking forward to that.

And I'm actually really hopeful, I think um city staff, community advocates, and our residents can actually come to the table together and we can get this right because yes, we're the first to do it, but we're also gonna be the first to get it right.

Um, and so um, yeah, I just want to say thank you for all your hard work.

Um, and those are all my comments.

Thank you so much.

All right, I'm the last speaker.

I'll keep it shorter.

All right, so uh one, we need more housing yesterday, today, and tomorrow.

So I'm supportive of all housing policies that will help us streamline and get production going because we need more housing.

At the same time, community input is so important to me, like councilmember Kaplan said, we have a few neighborhood associations in our district that review every single housing project that comes to our district.

And so having that community input and having the people see the designs of the houses, how many units are coming in, what the project looks like, is equally important to me because the community deserves that.

And third, uh councilmember Dickinson's idea on form-based code housing.

I've actually never heard of that.

And uh with a quick Google search, sounds like a great idea.

And so um I do ask city staff to come back and incorporate that into this plan because it sounds efficient and can help us condense all the policies that we have into one place, uh, so that we can uh not change our policy so much.

Because I feel like every single month we're here adopting different policies, and it's like, how does this policy go with that policy with this policy?

And we need to make it easier, not more difficult for small business developers and people coming into Sacramento to do business with the city of Sacramento.

If somebody wants to invest in the city of Sacramento, we need to be able to say, here's the roadmap, you gotta do A, B, C and D, let's go.

And that's my goal on housing.

So as we continue this conversation, uh trying to get from a roadmap to make it easier and say, hey, this is a business friendly city, this is where we want to invest in, um, is my priority.

So that's it, and looking forward to next steps, next presentations, and hearing more from the community.

So um city clerk moving along to this was a direction only, so no motion was necessary, and now we have public comment, we have 10 speakers, right?

That's correct, Vice Mayor.

I have 10 speakers, Barb Ram, Michael Bevins, Nate, Rosalie Lair.

Hello.

So um I love I don't even know where to start, honestly.

Change takes courage, change takes courage, which is sorely lacking in this city council.

And well, it would be nice if the mayor was actually here on a Tuesday night.

But um so I love listening to the middle, like all of the accolades that was given to the 25-year-old or 25-year retiree, but the middle missing middle housing isn't here.

So he spent 25 years not fixing that problem.

And I'm here because I'm more concerned with the how well, you know, I also want to say 20 and 30 year olds do not go to city planning meetings.

But those are the people you wanted to build a house for.

So you're not getting their input, you're getting old people input like me, and I already have a house.

So I believe that we should have more density.

But I also think that when you have like a homeless plan, like six-point homeless plan, but it doesn't include raining in the sheriffs, raining in the DA, raining in the cops who are actually creating homeless, then there's you're not really addressing the problems.

You're just looking at a symptom and trying to fix that.

But when affordable housing isn't part of the missing middle, and we need houses that people can buy, not just apartments.

Yes, we need apartments, but we do need houses that people can buy.

And my daughter found a house for like $500,000.

I'm like, uh maybe she can afford it, but not likely.

Anyway, change takes courage.

Thank you.

Next speaker is Michael Bevins.

Then Nate Kevin.

Hello again, council members.

Um, I got two things I want to talk about.

Uh I'll try to split it evenly.

I have attended uh the I don't know the address, but Kaplan and Talamantes had uh North Atomas, possible homeless shelter coming in, and then I also attended the hundred acre thing with district eight.

Uh it's always my two cents or two minutes worth.

Uh homeless shelter in the Thomas, I say yes, build it, but it all depends on what is going to be in that space.

When you say homeless shelter in a developed area, relatively new developed area, it should not be simple.

It should be more better use, more useful that space.

Um, it should be homeless entry-level homeless, it should be car camping homeless, uh the first shack slash tiny box, tiny house apartment, mixed use development, if you will, for the homeless.

Um, and then also 80% affordable housing and maybe 20% market rate.

It could be incorporate that, have people who might be traveling, want to have a little hotel.

They can park there temporarily to sign up for it, you know.

Just it shouldn't be all just a homeless shelter, it should be mixed use.

That's what we're going for with housing, mixed use.

So I say build it, but build it a step up above a typical homeless shelter.

And then moving on to 100 acres.

I was attended that thing, and um, that was very informative.

I understood now that most of the place around that hundred acres is spoken for, it's gonna be housing of some sort.

So, what are we gonna do with that hundred acres itself?

And I was like, I know you probably is an answer to it, but my thing was um the zoo did got canceled to go to El Grove with a Zoe work there in a hundred acres, and right across from the 100 acres or nearby is our big old sewer.

When I took the sewer tour, and I found out the water they take in from the Sacramento River is dirtier than the water they put back in, and I think that's a great use to maybe for some zoo animals to have a water uh wetland with the sewer water so we can have a big old water feature in that area.

So anyway, time's up.

Thank you.

Speaker is Nate, then Rosalie Lair calling Rosalie is Leah Shank and Julius Hassan.

Uh real quick aside, form-based codes for Dickinson and Talamantes, they're awesome.

You got to go all in.

Tony Perez is your man.

Bring him back with city staff, get a workshop on that.

Awesome stuff.

So my name's Nate.

Um, I'm piggy piggybacking on the 230 crew.

That was Denise Morgan and Julia Curry on for McClatchy PTSA imploring you to prioritize ride share.

Uh the funding is out.

We know that it's a highly popular.

The figures we were getting was 2001, 600,000 writers.

2024, 4.7 million.

Amplification of use, it's now become the de facto way a lot of kids get to school.

We want to continue to see that funding going forward.

Additionally, we're also looking for the city to sort of fix what broke.

The city did implement this program.

Unfortunately, it was sort of cobbled together the funding over the last couple years by basically like a sort of a handshake goodwill deal.

We really asking the city to initiate some sort of workshop or other policy mechanism to bring formal funding to this.

I'll be going to the SMUD board on Tuesday.

We've already reached out and had positive feedback from that.

We're also going to SACOG, the four cities, the other contributing school districts, all seeking continued bridge funding.

We know the school district is very unlikely to contribute, so those pies will either need to be more slices or slightly bigger pieces for those contributing members.

We'd really like to see a formal system set in place to continue ride share in a sustainable way.

We're very well aware of the citizen initiative coming forward.

However, that is several years out.

And so that bridge funding to maintain this program.

If it dies, resurrecting it would be a tremendous lift.

And so to maintain the SAC SECRT's ride-free program now, the small little amounts of 250,000, 350,000, which in the scheme of things is a very small amount in the budget, but we ask you to continue to prioritize that.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Rosalie and Leah.

Hi, all.

Where's Kevin tonight?

I miss him.

Come on now.

Um, my first um thing that I want to say, I've got to direct it to the city attorney.

You are so traumatic in your answer to the court.

I couldn't help but to laugh a little bit.

Um you said we had a bad faith effort to stop the city from doing anything about that, the homeless.

That's not it at all.

It's just that's not the spot for it.

There's such a better place for it.

I think that you said a couple of things that right border on you perjuring yourself.

So I would be a little bit more careful about what comes out of my mouth if I were you.

Just saying.

Okay.

Um the city has already delivered a lot of these little houses.

And um this is before the reviews have been made uh public.

Like what's happening with uh Sika?

Why would you spend the money before you get the final okay?

I it seems like a terrible waste of money to me.

Also, um the amount that's just under five million dollars that has been okayed.

Um that doesn't include the following site leveling, permitting costs, the assembly of those little shacks, leveling and anchoring them, bringing the electrical and other utilities to the site, uh, the on-site handler and the ever important beds that are going to be in these little tiny places.

So I think that you get away with it by having all these separate five million dollar expenditures.

I don't get that.

I thought it was one $5,000 cost per project.

Thank you for your comments.

Your time is complete.

Leah is our next speaker, then Julius.

Hello, good evening.

Um, I don't think I have to tell you all that it's been a pretty heavy week past few weeks with violence here in the city.

And um, it's particularly heavy when we are losing children, when we are seeing children being hurt and harmed due to violence within the city.

Um, I I've calculated 56 hours that I've put into this work from Friday to now with three families that are high priority that um have endured violence.

That's 56 hours that I'm not getting paid for.

It's 56 hours I'm away from my family, and that's 56 hours really of free labor.

Whereas there's a lot of organizations within this city that are heavily funded, whether it's OVP, whether it's city funds, whether it's measure funds, but they are not available at times when the families have a need.

When families are being um riddled with gunshots, we have a four-year-old that was shot.

Four.

He's a baby.

Um, there's no resources for him.

Um, these folks that you guys are giving money to are not applying that to where it needs to go.

OVP doesn't work.

It's not working.

Um, it's only working for those that benefit from it, but it's not working for the families.

It doesn't resonate to the families.

So when the families are displaced and don't have a home anymore because it was shot up, when the families need food, when the families can't go to work because now they have to care for the four-year-old that was shot.

Um, they don't have resources because that means they don't get paid.

Um, when they need therapeutic services, there's no one that provides therapeutic services because that costs money too.

So we have to do something different because what we're doing is not working.

Um, we are in the school districts already.

We're already school to school to school.

We go in there already to help um service the community.

Um, on Monday, yesterday, there was a lot, a lot of organizations out in Atomas High because of what happened.

That can't be this action cannot be performative.

That's performative.

Because where are these individuals any other day?

Because violence happens all the time.

This was just something that was very terminal, obviously.

It was horrible and it was horrendous.

But violence happens all the time.

Guns are in schools all the time.

We need community leaders all the time, and we need resources to be able to help the families.

The next speaker is Julius, then Cassell, then Don.

Good evening, everyone.

My name is Julius Tippado Hassan.

I'm the executive director for Movement for Life.

I want to start by saying that uh many of you here know what it's like to be a part of a championship team.

I'm looking at you, Rick Jennings.

I've been on a championship team with Councilman Jennings before, Karina before, uh, my before.

We know what it's like to go through 28 months of no juvenile homicides.

Making it to the playoffs, having a good season.

It's not like winning a championship.

Those years we were a championship team.

And so now we want to get back to that.

We want to get to back back to a time where there are no juvenile homicides, where we're working as a team, and Rick can attest to this, where even the kicker and the punter on the team are important.

Because in most cases, they aren't seen, they aren't important unless what?

It's only a few seconds left in the game, and you need them to either tie the game or win the game for you.

Other than that, you don't want them trying to tackle Marshawn Lynch or trying to tackle Derrick Henry.

You want them to stay out the way, and they're really not seen.

We don't have a CVI ecosystem where we're working together.

I was just speaking to someone today who's new to the city, and they said, wow, you all really work in silos here.

And that's an attestment.

What's happening right now, what's happening right now will show you the need for community-based organizations that have trust in the community.

Because if many of you are aware, the decision that the DA just made to not file charges, many people in the community will not understand that decision, and they will think justice has not been served.

And that's where you need folks like myself, like Leia, to be able to step in, but trusted community members that can come and explain and educate what just happened and prevent retaliation from happening.

And before we close out, we need CVI.

Thank you for your comments.

Our next speaker is Cassell, then Don, then Monet.

Oh God.

A couple of you look familiar to me.

Um, Katie, Rick Jennings, you knew my father.

He was a minister at uh St.

Paul Baptist Church, Reverend Wilson.

Um, rest in peace.

On December 25th, I returned from Gunther's with my mom.

December.

Look, I wish it was Christmas.

It wasn't.

March 25th.

Um, I returned from Gunthers with my mom, my nephew, my son.

Um, rushed home from Emoryville.

I work in the Bay Area a couple days a week, and I rushed home because I wanted to do ice cream with them.

It was like the second day in spring.

It was nice and warm outside.

My mom has owned her home in Ninth Avenue for 9th Avenue and 33rd in Oak Park for almost as long as I've been alive.

So I was raised in that community.

Um we were gunned down, getting out the vehicle.

There was no reason for this attack.

I just remember hearing my mother screaming, why are they shooting me?

I'm diving under a vehicle.

My son is running for his life, and I watched my four-year-old nephew lie on the porch in sheer terror.

There has not been a soul that has reached out to us.

No one has said a word.

We don't have any answers, and it's been three weeks.

We can't even return to the house that we grew up in, and we're being told that we need to be there.

Our my four-year-old nephew is in sheer terror.

My son doesn't even want to come outside, and then we hear about that and the Tony's shooting, and we're supposed to be safe.

And you guys have the savages running around out here killing people and shooting women, children, and innocent people, and no one's done nothing about it.

Do better.

Damn it.

Our next speaker is Don Mooney, then Rick.

My name's Don Wilson.

Um, over the last few months I've been teaching my son, you know, different words to bolster his vocabulary, safe, trustworthy community.

Today we talked about accountability.

Accountability means answering for actions or the failure to act.

That's why I'm here today.

I want to ask you guys, all y'all sitting out here representing our great city.

How are these actions and the silence justified?

My mother has spent years building her life in this community, O Park.

We love it.

Raising her family, maintaining her home.

She believes she was safe, but that's not been our experience.

My nephew was falsely arrested because he fit a description.

Those are the words from the cop's mouth.

He fit the description.

Although he was never charged or tried, we still posted bond, and he was told in a letter, nope, we just detained you.

A few weeks later, my sister was pulled over by cops in a family van.

So I don't know if they're traffic cops or what.

Pulled her over, accused her of breaking a law.

Nothing happened.

Then on the 25th, 25 bullets were fired at my family.

My son thought he was going to die.

He wakes up every morning and he says, Mom, have they caught the people?

And why did they try to murder us?

We have no answers.

I can't tell them anything, and I'm looking y'all in the face, and we don't even have resources.

We're displaced, and we're told, sell your mom's home, y'all be alright.

Every resource.

Y'all need to do better.

This is not right.

It's not okay.

And someone should have at least reached out to my mother and said, Hey Kat, you okay?

Thank you for your comments.

Our next speaker is Monet, then Rick Locke.

Hello.

I'm Monet.

I'm the youngest sister.

I'm usually in Sacramento to visit my family while I'm on break for school.

So I shouldn't have to be here today.

But I am because of the events on March 25th.

When the shooting happened, I had to put everything on pause, and I came to stand with my family and support them as best I could.

And I quickly noticed how rare that type of support is.

And it was rare to find from those that I expected to provide it.

Since the 25th, our family has been questioned.

We have been blamed and mistreated by not only the medical staff at UC Davis, elected officials, and other support organizations.

All while two-thirds of my family was recovering in a hospital.

And there is only so much help they can provide while we navigate this new reality.

My sisters and I have had to become a bulwark of advocacy for our own family.

Because it's clear we can't rely on support from other people.

Time cannot be paused forever, and eventually we will have to go on as if this didn't happen while we flinch at cars that drive too close and any sound that could be partially mistaken for gunshots.

We are tired of being strong.

We are tired of being capable.

We deserve to be taken seriously, especially by those who work for the betterment of the city.

What would you do if it was your family standing here?

If it was your mother who was fighting for her life.

What's next?

What else can we do but beg for help while standing in the ruins of our former lives?

Thank you.

Rick Locke is our final speaker.

Aloha.

For one day only, imagine Sacramento as a living, breathing, make a wish story.

Mayor, Vice Mayor, Council members, and community.

Last time I stood here, we talked about trust, not as a slogan, but as a felt experience between people who choose each other again and again when no one is watching.

Tonight, I want to take that further.

I want to treat trust the way someone, some people treat fame and influence as something you deliberately design, protect and grow.

In my inner circle, trust is not an accident.

It's how we speak about each other when we're not in the room.

It's the quiet knowing that if I stumble, someone who loves me will reach out a hand instead of a phone to record it.

That is the fabric that makes a community unbreakable.

So here's the wish.

Here's my wish that this council relates to our residents, the way backstage crew relates to a wish child on the biggest night of their lives.

Imagine one night only.

The Jonas brothers in town, a child who has fought harder than most adults will ever, and a promise that they will meet the band for a private photo.

Well, Sacramento deserves a better level of trust from between us and as we build and grow our city.

And happy birthday.

And Councilmember Vang, it's your birthday, please go to dinner.

All right, Councilmember Kaplan.

Thank you, Vice Mayor.

Uh I just want to, I think, as we we acknowledge history, yesterday and today is known as Yom Hashoa, which is the International Holocaust Remembrance Day.

We pause and we should pause to honor the memory of the six million Jews, including one and a half million children murdered by the Nazi regime and its collaborators.

We must mourn the loss of life, the culture, and the potential.

We must bear witness to the brutal truth of the Holocaust, the ultimate violation of human dignity, and remember the courageous resilience of their survivors and the resistance of those who fought back.

Today we should renew our sacred obligation, of which my community constantly says to never forget, and to act against the rising anti-Semitism, hatred, and injustice wherever it exists, from whomever it exists.

Let this day be a catalyst for remembrance, education, and the unyielding defense of human rights everywhere.

Thank you.

And seeing no other council members, Punch of Speaks, adjourned at 744.