I'd like to call to order this meeting of the Sacramento County Board of Supervisors for Tuesday, February 4th, 2025.

Madam Clerk, will you please call the roll and establish a quorum.

Good morning, Supervisor Kennedy.

Supervisor Desmond.

Supervisor Rodriguez.

Here.

Supervisor Hugh.

Here.

And Chair Kennedy.

Or is Chair Surnon my apologies.

Here.

You do all the quorum.

Great, thank you.

We please rise and join me in the pledge.

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

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

Madam Clerk, please reverse statement.

This meeting of the Sacramento County Board of Supervisors is live and recorded with close

captioning.

It is cable cast on Metro cable channel 14, the local government affairs channel on the

Comcast and direct TV universe cable systems.

It is also live streamed at Metro14live.saccounty.gov and can be heard on 96.5 FM KUB radio.

Today's meeting will be repeated Friday, February 7th at 6 o'clock PM on Channel 14 and

viewed at youtube.com Metro cable 14.

The Board of Supervisors fosters public engagement during the meeting and encourages public

participation, civility and the use of courteous language.

The Board does not condone the use of profanity, vulgar language, gestures, or other inappropriate

behavior including personal attacks or threats directed towards any meeting participant.

Seeding is limited and available on a first-come, first-served basis.

Each speaker will be given two minutes to speak to make a public comment and are limited

to making one comment per agenda, off agenda item.

Please be mindful of the public comment procedures to avoid being interrupted while making your

comments.

Please note that following the 30 minutes of public comment, all other comments will be

added to the end after timed items.

Comments made by the public during Board of Supervisors meeting may include information

that could be inaccurate or misleading, particularly concerning topics related to public health,

or to registrations and elections.

The County of Sacramento does not endorse or validate the accuracy of public statements

made during these open public forums.

The recordings are shared to provide transparency and access to the proceedings of public meetings.

To make a comment in person, please fill out a speaker request form and hand it to clerk

staff.

The chairperson will open public comments for each agenda, off agenda item, and direct

the clerk to call the name of each speaker.

When the clerk calls your name, please come to the podium and make your comment.

If a speaker is unavailable to make a comment prior to the closing of public comments, the

speaker waives their request to speak and the clerk will file the speaker request form

in the record.

The clerk will manage the timer and allow each speaker two minutes to make a comment.

Off agenda public comments will take place for a maximum of 30 minutes.

The remainder of the agenda comments will take place at the conclusion of the time matters

in the afternoon.

You may send written comments by email to board clerk at setcounty.gov.

Your comment will be routed to the board and filed in the record.

If you needed accommodation, pursue it to the Americans with Disabilities Act or for

medical or other reasons.

Please see clerk staff for assistance or contact the clerk's office at 916-874-5451 or

by email at board clerk at setcounty.gov.

Thank you in advance for your courtesy and understanding of the meeting procedures.

Very good.

Thank you.

Again, I'd like to welcome everyone that's joined us here in Chambers this morning for today's

Board of Supervisors meeting.

Again, friendly reminder to all those who wish to address the board that we please respectfully

ask you to keep your comments and statements to no more than two minutes.

We have that time limit in place so that everyone who wishes to address the board has the

opportunity to do so.

Please note that if you do expect to speak, I would just offer the advice to keep your

eye on the color of the linking lights.

There's one at the podium and one on each screen here.

Speaking of screens, I want to thank everyone responsible for getting our stages left screen

back and operable.

I know it was a long tortured delay that we all suffered.

But it's good that we have everything working here in Chambers again.

So with that, our first item of the day is off agenda speakers, Minimler.

Our first speaker for today is Patricia Wetzel.

Good morning.

Good morning.

Good morning.

Good morning.

Thank you for making public comment.

My name is Patricia Wetzel.

I am on the mental health board and the community wellness response team advisory committee

and other eight other boards and commissions to do with mental health and Sacramento County.

And I'm here to comment, in part on the Sacramento Sheriff Office's office change in policy regarding

mental health calls.

Can I interrupt real quick?

We're going to have an annual report that is on a very similar parallel item.

Is this going to be somewhat divergent different than that or would it be more appropriate to

take your testimony under that item?

I am speaking item 17 on a different issue.

Okay.

All right.

Very good.

No, please know what I stopped your time.

Thank you.

I appreciate that.

So the first thing I want to do is commend to the board of supervisors the need for behavioral

health services in the county to make a massive public relations campaign, promoting the

use of 988 and the community wellness response team.

The community wellness response team advisory committee has been asking for this for two years

and has not happened.

Keeps getting put off.

Also we have asked or recommended that 911 be tracking calls to know how many they are

diverting to 988.

I'd really like to know if that's being done.

The sheriff's department has told us that they are only arresting people that they go

on a mental health call for.

They are not willing to take them to a psychiatric hospital even if that is appropriate.

I'd really appreciate the board of supervisors knowing that bit of information.

I want to note that the sheriff's office is chosen to schedule their press conference

about this issue at 1130 today and it is not open to the public.

It would have been really nice to have it open to the public.

988 needs special training in regard to handling grave disability calls.

They are turning them away because they don't think that the person is able to agree to

services.

When someone is in a psychotic crisis, they are not able to agree to services.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Speaker is Ryan Harris.

All right.

So today I come here on respectfully laughing.

I'm not laughing just at the clowns in front of me but at you guys at home.

I'm laughing because I spent years proving how corrupt the Sacramento government is and

now people are starting to see it.

Here's another example.

Your governor is working on a project that costs over a billion dollars.

You guys should look it up.

It's called the Sacramento Capital Annex project.

You may not know about it because the project will use yours and my taxpayer money.

But you and I were not allowed to vote on it nor know about it.

Now of that 1.2 billion being used, 5.2 million will be used to have granted mind and central

valley shipped to Italy to be turned into a brick, then shipped back to put on the exterior

of the capital annex building.

So keep that in mind.

We're spending 5.2 million dollars to ship bricks to Italy to be turned into a brick to

ship them back.

Sure, some other bricks might get mixed up in that that'll allow people to profit or

not but hey, let you guys make that decision.

I recently helped in LA and it's devastating out there.

Think my fellow Californians would agree that 5.2 million dollars could better be spent

helping families and tragedies than bricks on the exterior of a building.

But Gavin's a narcissist and sees no wrong in himself and continues to pray on the kind

hearts of Californians.

So I'm going to go to our blaming Gavin.

So what is Gavin trying to do?

Shift the blame to the president.

Now I've got to watch my governor jack off the president's arm to try to exert some type

of dominance over him.

What is that proven?

Where does that get us?

Since I'm running out of time, I'm just going to say Trump come to Sacramento.

How that mean?

I got a lot of insight on these people right here.

I'm sorry, my governor tried to give you the tuggy tuggy on the tarmac and Elon Musk.

I think you should look into that annex project and the raises of these people.

Because the people at home, I'm sure they're not aware of the $100,000 raise you guys gave

yourself and said the public said nothing about it.

That's why we did it even though I was here a couple of times.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

You serve our household.

Next speaker is Ryan Holtz.

Supervisors, you are not mere administrators, you are civil magistrates.

Your authority is delegated, not absolute.

First, by the people and ultimately by God himself, the supreme law giver.

Everyone who has ever lived has a way that is right to them, but there is only one that

is truly morally good.

Our role is not to enforce unjust decrees, but to stand as a barrier between the people

and lawless tyranny.

The Constitution binds you, Article 4, Section 4 guarantees a Republican form of government

ruled by law, not by dictate.

If you enforce unlawful mandates, you do not preserve a republic, you dismantle it.

The Supreme Court has ruled that you cannot be compelled to enforce unconstitutional laws.

Prince versus the United States, 521 U.S., 898, 1997 made it clear no higher authority

can enforce you to carry out unlawful orders.

The same holds true for the state mandates that violate the Constitution, New York versus

the United States, 505 U.S., 144, 1992.

Reaffirm that local governments are not mere arms of the state of state control.

This is your duty.

When higher authorities command what is unjust, you must resist.

The doctrine of the lesser magistrate demands it.

History has condemned those who complied with tyranny.

Will you be remembered among them?

The law is on your side.

The Constitution is on your side.

The question is not if you will give an account, but when?

Psalm 2 warns rulers to serve the Lord with fear, lest they perish in their rebellion.

If you refuse to act justly, you align yourself with lawless men who will certainly be rewarded

as the law of God determines.

But if you uphold goodness and lay hold of Jesus Christ, you will stand as true magistrates,

protectors of the people and vessels of God's justice.

Thank you.

Let's speak with his chat.

Supervisors, I come before you not as a subject, but as a citizen.

A free man under God and the Constitution endowed with rights that neither you nor this state nor this nation may lawfully take away.

This board has not only permitted the state legislature to strip away our rights.

Article 6 clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution establishes that any statute executive order or regulation

that contradicts the Constitution is no one void.

You are not obligated to comply.

You are obligated to defy.

The Kentucky and Virginia resolutions of night 1798 affirm that state and local governments must nullify unconstitutional edicts.

Prince versus the United States 1997 confirmed that the federal government cannot compel local officials to enforce unlawful mandates.

Marbury versus Madison 1803 ruled that a law repugnant to the Constitution is void.

If it is void, it does not bind you.

While you do nothing, this county descends until into lawlessness and violation of Article 4, Section 4.

We have no Republican form of government.

The state has refused to secure election integrity with no voter ID, mass mail-in ballots, and ballot harvesting that undermine the foundation of a republic.

A government that does not ensure lawful elections is not a republic.

It is an oligarchy.

We have no protection from domestic violence.

Assembly Bill 109, Proposition 47, and Proposition 57 have turned California into a haven for criminals.

Violent felons roam free under the guise of non-violent parole reform.

Assault, human trafficking, and arson are now non-violent crimes.

A perversion of justice.

We have no protection from invasion.

Sacramento reaffirmed its sanctuary city status on January 29th, 2025, ensuring that criminals who enter unlawfully are shielded-

Please promote police.

Deportation, illegal entry is not immigration.

It is invading.

Next speaker please.

You supervisors have chosen to next speaker please.

The next speaker is Cynthia.

Supervisors, the people you serve walk in fear not because of foreign threats, but because of policies that you've permitted that redefine violence itself.

Under Proposition 57, the state has reclassified heinous offenses as non-violent.

The consequences are devastating.

Consider what is now eligible for early release.

Rape of an unconscious person.

You mean a predator violating a defenseless victim is non-violent?

Human trafficking of a minor.

Children sold as property, yet the trafficker is not violent, right?

Assault with a deadly weapon.

A man stabbed in the street, yet the law claims that it's not violent enough.

The person causing great bodily injury, setting fire on property in a way that it causes life-threatening harm is somehow not violent.

Solicitation to commit murder, really, paying someone to kill another human being, the law pretends that no violence has occurred.

Exploding a destructive device with intent to injure.

Setting it off an explosive meant to cause harm, yet the law doesn't call it violence.

Robbery, taking property by force, yet is legally classified as non-violent.

Hate crime causing physical injury.

A crime committed with hate is a motive.

Injuring another human being, yet it is not considered violent.

False imprisonment of an elder by violence.

Restraining an elderly person with physical force, yet the law insists that no violence has occurred.

These are not oversight guys.

This is deliberate, pervertions of justice.

The law is no longer protect the innocent.

It releases the guilty in the victims.

They're left with scars, broken homes, and fear their attacker walks free.

Their government has abandoned them.

And you supervisors, by your silence, you're complicit.

You cannot claim ignorance.

You can't claim powerlessness.

You can act.

The board has legal authority to refuse to comply with state-of-the-public.

Mr. Rappov.

The next speaker is Victor Ottersted.

Before you ask his time, would you mind giving this to him?

Yes.

We're going to put it up.

Good morning, Board of Supervisors.

I stand before you not to ask for action, but to inform you of the lawful action you already

are empowered to take.

The Constitution is not a mere document.

It is a restraint on unlawful power.

And when higher authorities violate the Constitution, you are not bound to comply.

You are bound to resist.

The Constitution is the highest law of the land.

The Supreme Court has spoken this in Prince versus United States, as others have mentioned,

1997.

The Court ruled that the federal government cannot force local officials to enforce unconstitutional

laws.

Disapplied to the state as well.

No mandate, no executive order, no legislative decree supersedes your oath to defend the

Constitution in the United States.

So you have three options.

Number one, nullification.

You can pass county resolutions rejecting unconstitutional state policies.

The Kentucky and Virginia resolutions are referred to 1798, provide precedent where

states rejected federal unconstitutional overage.

So nullification is one.

Number two, non-enforcement.

You can refuse to execute mandates that violate constitutional rights.

Marbury versus Madison, 1803 declared that a law repugnant to the Constitution is void

if it is void is not law.

And if it is not law, you're not required to enforce it.

Number three, legislative action.

You can enact county ordinances that shield citizens from tyrannical laws.

Just as California declared itself a sanctuary for criminals, you can declare this county a

sanctuary for law in order.

You have permitted the shedding of innocent blood was just covered.

You have allowed the wicked to go free while the righteous are silent, silenced, and you

have forsaken your duty as magistrates.

Your authority is clear.

The only question is whether you will use it.

Thank you.

The next speaker is Kenneth C.

All right.

Good morning to you all again.

So we've been coming for months.

I stand before you today burdened with the inescapable truth that abortion is not just a tragedy,

it's an atrocity.

It's the legalized killing of the most innocent among us.

And its origins are steeped in racism, eugenics, and the deliberate destruction of innocent people,

people of all backgrounds.

Margaret Sanger found her Planned Parenthood did not hide her motives.

She spoke of eliminating human weeds of controlling undesirable populations.

She targeted black communities and today her mission continues.

Though black communities make up 13% of the population, they account for 40% of all abortions.

That's over 242,000 innocent people murdered annually and it's not accidental.

It's a genocide by consent.

On the basis of biological facts, science has confirmed a unique whole biologically distinct

human being begins to exist at the moment of conception.

They have a beating heart at 21 days, arms, legs, hands, fingers, toes at eight weeks,

and at nine weeks they can suck their thumb for the first time and taste their mother's

food by 13 weeks.

Furthermore, philosophically, human rights are centered in a shared ontological human nature

that we all possess from conception.

Not in accidental properties, particularly stage of development, size, level of consciousness

location.

Moreally, the intentional killing of another innocent person constitutes human rights violations.

It is an act of murder and will not only be condemned in the earth, but also in the life

to come.

California is an abortion sanctuary.

That means my tax dollars fund the execution of innocent children, AB 223, allows for the

destruction of innocent life up until the period needle stage.

That's up until the point of birth seven days before, potentially 28 days after, however

you define it.

You all are a dare with your duties.

This is what's happening inside of your community.

Innocent people are being murdered.

You guys ought to do something about it.

You got about the need of Jesus Christ.

The next speaker is Victor Shobhan.

Superwizers.

Historical consequences of ignoring petitions.

Here is filled with rulers who ignore the cries of their people.

History has judged them accordingly.

I speak not just from history books, but from my own family.

My great grandfather was starved to death in a Soviet gulag, as I said last time.

His very existence as a Christian in a wavered society signified a petition for justice.

To those who hated truth, the family freed him and were in desperate attempt to secure

utopian vision, their broken worldview could never secure.

The government labeled him a threat, dismissed their calling, to act justly and sentence him

to the gulag, but the truth could not be buried with him.

Today you are repeating history.

We have come before you, not in violence nor in rebellion, but with petitions grounded

in law and history and in truth.

Whether by the ballot, by uprising or by the judgment act of God.

In this life none of us get out of here alive, but God's promises for all to hear and respond

to.

He will not be mocked.

Those who scorn his name will face the weight of his justice, crying out too late as they

bear the full and eternal cost of their sin.

Yet all who turn from evil and do good through faith in Jesus Christ believing his death and

resurrection will be saved.

Still many condemn by their own rebellion will perish.

God is merciful to those who repent.

You stand at the cross.

Please wrap up.

Amen.

And that concludes our public comment for today.

Thank you.

All right.

Next item please.

Next item on the agenda is I have a couple of clerk notes.

The first is that we do need to, I need a motion from the board to determine the necessity

to hear an item which is the ratification of a local proclamation of emergency for winter

storms of February 2025.

I need a motion for that.

So moved.

It's been moved in a second.

Please vote.

In that item does pass unanimously.

Thank you.

Additionally, I will need a motion to approve that same resolution.

So moved.

Second.

It's been moved in a second.

Do we have anyone sign up to speak on this matter?

We do not.

Okay.

Please vote.

In that item has passed unanimously as well.

Great.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And I just do have two clerk notes for consent items number two, three, sixteen.

The first is item number three will be adopting three Sacramento County Code ordinances Title

four, chapter 4.55 related to sidewalk vending.

Adding Title six, chapter 6.05 related to compact mobile food operators.

Amending Title nine, chapter 9.36 related to park regulations.

Repealing Title four, chapter 4.54, Article one, sections 4.5400 to 4.54.

0.020 related to regulations of street businesses.

This was rave the full reading and continued from January 28th meeting item number 44.

And item number nine, you will be acting as the Sacramento County Water Agency.

You'll be approving the Sacramento County Water Agency Development Impact fee, annual and

five year finding reports for fiscal year ending June 30th, 2024.

That concludes the clerk's notes.

Very good.

Thank you, Madam Clerk.

Do we have any members of the public sign up to speak on any consent matter?

I do not.

Okay, very good.

Then I'll turn to my colleagues and ask if there are any questions, comments, statements that

wish to be made about consent and first in the queues, Reviser Rodriguez.

I just want to give some comment on number 12.

That is adding six FTE security officer positions to RT.

And as an RT user, one of the number of one reasons why people do not use RT is because

of safety.

Now I've been using it for the past month and have written it when I would come down to

the County Building and I have had a safe experience.

And so I hope that this gives the public a better perception that they will be safe using

light rail to get to their destinations.

That's it.

Good comments.

Thank you.

Okay, any others?

I do have a brief comment on item seven.

Item number seven is to adopt a resolution to authorize the director of the Department

of Transportation to execute an improvement implementation agreement between Costco

wholesale corporation in the County of Sacramento for the Sky King Road extension and Fielin

Drive project.

I just wanted to offer my thanks to Mr. Defonte for his focus on this over the last several

months.

It feels like there continues to be an extraordinary amount of activity in Metro Airport and

we're fortunate to see that but that certainly does not come out, come with its occasional

challenges or respectful disagreements with some of the property owners.

But again, thanks to Dave for working with the property owners and the prospective tenant

to find resolution on this.

So I just want to put down the record.

Thank you.

All right.

No one else is in the queue with questions, comments, statements about consent matters.

We have no public speakers.

Is there a motion?

I will move.

Second.

Okay, it's been moved and seconded.

Please vote.

And that item does pass unanimously.

Very good.

Thank you.

Next item on the agenda is item number 17.

This item is to receive an annual update from the Community Review Commission and approve

the resolution to amend the name and membership terms of the Community Review Commission by establishing

the Sheriff Community Review Commission.

Very good.

Do we have any opening comments by Mr. Jones?

I just want to, Eric Jones, Deputy County Executive, Public Safety and Justice.

We have four, at least four of our commissioners, I believe here, and Chair Curtis will walk us

through the presentation.

Thank you all for being here.

Very good.

Thank you.

Mr. Curtis.

Good morning, Chair Serta and supervisors.

Good to see everyone.

That's nice to be back.

I'll be my second time presenting the annual report.

So good to go ahead and kick it off and I've got assistance in changing the slide site.

Pay attention to my notes.

So again, I'm Chair of the Community Review Commission.

We're kicking this off next slide.

We have control of the clicker.

Oh, sorry.

That's right.

Thank you.

All righty.

So this is especially for the newer members of the Board of Supervisors.

Just a brief update on how the commission was created.

Back on a quick correction on the first slide there, there's actually AB 1185 that created

the ability for this county and any other county to create an oversight, Sheriff's oversight,

board with subpoena power.

So that happened in 2020 and 2021, the Board of Supervisors established the Community Review

Commission and in 2022, we began meeting monthly.

I started as the vice chair and then stepped up as Chair of the Commission last year.

In blue is the mission statement for the, as established by the resolution, that established

the commission and improved transparency and accountability with respect to the Sheriff

County, Sacramento County Sheriff's Office and provide greater community interaction and

communication with the Office of the Inspector General.

Basically, we're meant to be a conduit from the public to the Inspector General, gathering

their feedback and concerns, looking into them, determining issues that we should take

under consideration and whether we should make any recommendations to the Inspector General.

That's how it works.

Next slide.

So that's just shows who's on our county commission right now.

McGatden want to recognize in the audience, I'm vice chair Mike Whiteside, William Show

and Theresa Riviera over there.

And we also have, so from District 1, it is myself and John Stolar, District 2 is Bishop

Baker and Michael Whiteside, District 3 is William Show and Ted Walter, District 4 is Michael

Martell and Sam Summers, District 5 is Theresa Riviera, and we've had a vacant seat, but

it does not know fault of the current supervisor, because she just inherited this position and

has been empty for a little while.

And I'll touch on that a little later on in the difficulty of finding members for the

commission when we have an empty seat.

Next slide.

So this covers the work that we're doing for the commission.

And our first annual report, we give you a highly detailed list of meetings, everything

that we've done.

We kind of summarized it down here just for you.

There's more detail in the report, the full report that you have.

So we participated in the last two selection processes for the inspector general.

We participated.

There's a new statewide coalition called the California Coalition for Sheriff's oversight.

Its goal is to encourage other counties to create oversight commissions.

I want to note especially that Sacramento took a real lead in establishing this commission.

At the time, there was one of only three commissions in the entire state with oversight.

So Sacramento really took a leadership position, which I personally really, really appreciate.

There's a boy that's going on.

We have about seven or eight counties that are now established two more coming on this

year.

It's a bit of a battle.

There's not every county wants to have oversight or sheriff's want to have the oversight.

But I believe as a process, the power of civilian oversight of law enforcement is important

in creating a collaborative partnership type of relationship.

So then we've also attended a number of community events, presentations and public comments.

The next item there is on the ad hoc committees.

And just so you all know, and for our newer members, the ad hoc committees are used to

conduct the commission's business.

We dig deep and analyze policies, procedures and operations of the sheriff's office.

These committees produce reports and recommendations that are voted on by the commission and passed

on to the inspector general.

We've also set up, while our relationship is specifically with the inspector general,

we're talking about the first time we've developed a great relationship with our sheriff,

especially our somewhat new sheriff, and that we always have a representative of leadership

for the sheriff's office attending our meetings as part of that.

And we really respect that and honor the partnership that we have with the sheriff's office as well.

And then also the funnel when you hear more about it, but we are proposing revisions to

the commission rules and regulations.

And next slide.

So the first ad hoc committee that we, there was two that we had in our last round for last

year.

The first one was on vehicle stops, searches and toes.

Basically around what we call racial profiling.

I served on that ad hoc committee.

We did a lot of work on it.

Reviewing both the data that was incorporated.

The data came from several sources.

There was the RIPPA, the racial and identity profiling advisory board data review.

In the ACLU of Northern California and Catalyst California, did their own report analyzing

vehicle stops and made their own recommendations.

The data shows there's a just proportionate number of Latino and black members of our

community who get stopped.

The data's period.

It's there.

The reasons for it happening are much more complex.

We looked at a lot of different cities and communities across the country and what they've

done to address those issues.

There's several communities that made changes in how law enforcement could stop vehicles

when they would stop and things like that.

In an attempt to change the data, the ratio of racial profiling that was happening.

Those changes haven't significantly changed the data overall.

It just highlights that it's an extremely complex situation with a number of issues involved

in it from there.

However, with that, we did, as the Ad hoc Committee, make several recommendations.

Two of them were not approved and one was.

The first was to adopt a policy limiting police interrogation or questioning during vehicle

stops that was not approved.

Develop and adopt a pretextual stop policy in line with best practices, emphasizing the

need to build public trust and safety in the community.

They were not approved.

Then the one that was approved was update share of policy 401.

Buy a space policing to align with standards in the field as best suited for this community.

Mr. Curtis, can I interrupt real quick?

I know that Mr. Vajcanadi has a question here, but I also have a question.

I want to understand, is it not approved or approved by the commission or by the sheriff's

department?

It's not approved by the commission.

Okay.

Each individual commission member has to vote to approve or not approve any recommendations

that we make because it has to come from the entire commission.

Good minds think alike.

So, Mr. Vajcanadi apparently had the same question.

Yep.

I will just state with respect to that, those of us on the Ad hoc Committee strongly

stand by those recommendations.

I would strongly encourage the sheriff's office to implement them.

It's the right move to make.

There was some misinterpretation from some committee members that we were telling the

sheriff's office what to do.

We have no ability to make the sheriff's office do anything.

We just make recommendations to the inspector general.

The inspector general reviews them and passes them on to the sheriff's office.

But again, as I noted, we've worked to develop a good relationship with the sheriff's office.

That's critical.

The vote was what I was not happy, but it was what it was and we move on.

So, we're eager to hear the balance of your presentation, but I think it's appropriate

at this point just to remind the public that when we're talking about who doesn't does

not have jurisdiction over policy or the ability to immediately shape change, introduce

policy as it relates to the sheriff's department, this board does not have that ability.

No board has that ability in state of California.

We can certainly attempt to influence that, I think, is part of the purpose of your commission.

So we do that in a pretty methodical way, but really the only real control, if you will,

or ability to directly influence the sheriff's office is as it relates to the budget which

we consider annually.

So again, apologies for the interruption.

That's okay.

It's a good point to make as well because we often get comments about that even with our

commission and why can't you tell the sheriff's office what to do.

And there's a very fine line there.

We want to respect that.

So we'll go into the next slide.

So the next ad hoc committee from the last session that we did focused on mental health

treatment in custody.

This revolves around the make consent degree which I've learned a lot about over the last

few years, as I know you all have.

The consent degree has many areas that it covers, one of which is mental health.

The consent degree and federal course provides actual enforcement and oversight of progress

in the jails regarding individuals requiring mental health treatment.

Furthermore, the CRCR commission does not have any authority or ability to make recommendations

for adult correctional health.

That's outside of the control of the sheriff's office.

Which is, it is the adult correctional health as a leading provider for mental health

services in custody through their contract with UC Davis.

What we can do is look at the interactions between the sheriff's office and adult correctional

health to ensure that they're coordinating and communicating together on issues that they

often have, mutual oversight over, to ensure that there's collaboration in those areas.

So the recommendations for that committee were to first to coordinate with county partners

to improve base consent degree compliance and reporting.

With one, improved semi-annual reports with executive summaries, policy updates and priorities

that was approved and produced timely and complete responses to court appointed subject

matter experts.

And that was approved as well.

And we'll go on to the next slide.

So this gets into the area what we're bringing up to you and you have all of this information

is your packets.

There was an establishing resolution that created this commission.

In our three years of operation, we've learned a lot about what works within the commission

and what could be improved.

The first one is around changing the name of our commission.

I've spent the last three years repeating myself 100, 100, 100 times about what the community

review commission is.

It doesn't really say who we are.

It doesn't relate to the sheriff's office or anything like that.

So we are recommending to change to the name of Sheriff Community Review Commission.

It clarifies the purpose and law enforcement connection.

And it distinguishes us from the Sacramento Community Police Review Commission that the

city has.

So, and I strongly support this.

We all do.

It's a good move.

We've all had to deal with trying to explain who we are with a name that's not so clear

about that.

The other major changes, again, all detailed in your packet, are around clarifying and

reallying in member terms.

As I noted by prior comments, it's not the most popular commission for people to want

to get on.

And it takes unique individuals that understand law enforcement, policies, and procedures,

how to review those, how to analyze data, how to look at all of that, and keep it an

open mind and an open perspective.

It really took me at least a year to get my feet under myself to really understand the

business of the commission and what we were looking at within the preview of the commission

and what we can do or not.

So we're asking that, and when we all started, we all started at the same time.

We pretty quickly, and there were a couple years faced the possibility that we could use

several members all at once just because of how we all started at the same time.

And our term limits weren't staggered.

So the recommendations in that area are membership terms to match the operational year, fiscal

year, and designate one appointee from each district to begin their term in odd number

years and the other in even numbered years that allows each supervisor to have a staggered

approach to how you all are dealing with, ensuring you have members on this commission

as well, and makes it easier instead of say one year you lose two at the same time.

And then clarify the term length for mid term appointments and then remove term limits.

I know this is more of a controversial one and we struggled with this.

But the fact is, again, it's hard to get people to apply for these seats.

And we felt within the language, it allows us if there's any somebody doesn't trust for

meetings or whatever.

We have ways to remove a member if appropriate.

But in the meantime, we just felt this was the best approach to keep qualified and good

members on the commission going forward.

I for one don't plan to stay on forever.

But I really, truly join my time on the commission and I'm not leaving yet.

But I think this is a good move in a right direction.

So if I could, again, interrupt here.

I'm looking to Mr. Jones on this and our county council.

So I tend to agree, I don't know if there's another slide with even more recommendations

that may or may not involve potential changes via resolution.

But it sounds to me like there may have to be some kind of formal consideration by this

board in terms of changes to things like the name of the commission and term limits.

So is that something that we've looked into at least in terms of the procedural mechanics

of how to respond to these recommendations?

Yes, once again, Eric Jones, Deputy County Executive Public Safety.

Yeah, we've been working with county council on, they've been very involved in the process.

They attend all of the, our assigned county council attends all of those meetings.

So that's why it's brought to you today so that you will vote or not to accept what you're

getting from the commission here today.

Okay, so does that mean that we're voting on the substantive changes today that affect

the resolution?

Do we have to re-agendize that at a later date?

There's a resolution attached to your packet and if you approve it, it will be effective

today.

Okay, very good.

Thank you.

Then actually the next slide clarifies not as well if I go to that.

So the requested action is to approve a resolution superseding resolution 2021-0256,

the original resolution.

You have copies, both the clear copy of the new language and a red line one so you can

see the changes as well, it's all in your packet there.

So this would, to effectuate an updated name and membership terms that's described and

then authorize the clerk of the board to update the membership terms for current commission

members to align with the proposed alternating year structure.

And in your packet for each of the supervisors, it shows where your commission members specifically

are, what years they would fall under.

So it's very, very clear how that operates.

And then you can refer to anything in your packet there, but it is the action we're requesting.

And then the next slide, this is just for you and for the general public.

The public can read our 2023-24 annual report.

It's on the commission website, along with all of our meeting schedules and agendas at

Huck Committee reports, rules and regulations.

And we invite the public always to attend commission meetings held here in these chambers.

Finally, it's not on a slide on the PowerPoint, but I want to read a statement I have on

the behalf of the commission regarding the current issue with the major policy changes

at the sheriff's office with respect to how they will or will not respond to mental health

calls out in the field.

With respect to the recent notification by the sheriff's office of a major change to

their policy on when to respond or not to respond to mental health calls in Vavine, a person

experiencing the behavioral health crisis.

As soon as this commission became aware of this policy change, we requested the sheriff's

office to prevent, presented overview of the policy.

They did so at our last meeting on January 21st, 25.

This provided the first public forum for this policy to be shared to discuss.

The commission is extremely concerned about the change of policy and is concerned that

it was implemented without discussing or realizing how it would impact both the residents

of Sacramento County and the other responders, such as those involving civilian clinicians

or fire department personnel who rely on the sheriff's office to respond when calls involve

a weapon.

Based on this, the commission is working to gather more information and public feedback.

The ad hoc committee focused on SB 43, whatever current ad hoc committees will look into this

further and will consider making recommendations of this issue to the inspector general.

The community review commission looks forward to continuing to be a venue for the community

to share its thoughts and opinions about this and other sheriff's office policies, procedures

and operations.

The commission will be reviewing this issue again at our next meeting on February 18th

at 6 p.m. right here in these chambers and we invite members of the public to attend

and share their thoughts.

With that, that includes my comments and my presentation and open for any questions.

Thank you, Paul.

Always very informative and thorough.

Supervisor Kennedy.

Thank you, Chair.

First of all, it goes without saying you're probably going to hear this five times.

Thank you all for doing what you do and for the service that you're providing the county.

When this commission was started, it had every hallmark of potential fighting and infighting

and friction and every report that I've gotten back from members of the public from our

own staff has been nothing but that you've handled yourself extremely professionally yourselves,

only professionally, respectfully even when there's disagreements and that's sometimes

difficult in a subject that is particularly charged as this one.

To all of you who are here today and those that aren't, thank you and thank you, Paul,

for stepping up in leadership.

I did want to just kind of go over a couple of things.

I was intimately involved with the genesis of the commission working with the county council's

office, also attending conferences in other cities throughout the nation of the National

Association of Civilian Oversight of Law Enforcement, NACL.

It was interesting and I just want to give this perspective as to how we came upon the name

so that for those who weren't on the board or involved, there's an understanding of how

we got to where we are and why I completely agree with your recommendation.

So after attending several training sessions and symposiums of NACL again throughout the

nation, I remember sitting in an auditorium at the University of Texas and there was probably

80 people in the room from different jurisdictions throughout the country and I remember toward

hearing everything I kept hearing was police, police, police, police, police.

We all know here that the role between city councils, mayors and police chiefs is very,

very different than the role between members of the board of supervisors and an elected sheriff.

So I actually asked the question, I said, how many people are here from counties?

Probably 80 people who were involved individually on this subject in a very serious way and it

was me and another person.

And I asked the panel of experts who are very much supportive of oversight of law enforcement,

that's the whole purpose of the organization.

I said, you know, what does that tell you?

And I will tell you that they very, very frankly told me it means you're screwed.

It means that there's very little that can be done as members of the board of supervisors

throughout the country and specifically in California where case law and language within

our own constitution has made it very clear where our limitations are.

That is why when I recommended a name and I struggled with it, I specifically did not have

the word oversight in there.

Because two reasons, one is we had a very different relationship with the sheriff at that time

than we do now on this board.

And I think quite frankly in our community.

And then also I did not want to give the impression that this body has more authority than

it actually does and not build up expectations beyond what they could be met.

And I felt like the word oversight was a strong word, words matter.

And that's why we shied away from oversight and went to review.

I totally sympathize with your position of nobody knows what the HACCA community review

commission is.

And so I do support that change.

And I just wanted to bring that up so that this wasn't something that was done lightly.

It was with a lot of thought.

But I think we're in a different place now.

We've actually shown the community, the public that this is a body that's functioning,

that's well functioning and works closely with our staff, with the community and with this

board.

So, name change, I completely understand.

Regarding the membership, I think staggered terms was a good idea.

Should have done it to begin with.

It is important that we have a broad array of people represented on this.

I think that we've all done a pretty good job of bringing together a lot of people with

different, but one of the things that I wanted and why I agree with you on term limits, and

I'll be honest, I do not remember putting term limits in, because I generally don't like

them.

But one of the things is that we also want not just all of that litany of bullet points

on expertise, but life experience.

And both I think play a very, very significant role here.

The expertise, some bring it to the table, some learn it as you have said that you did

over the course of your early tenure, which is also why term limits are a bad idea when

it's, experience actually makes you a better commissioner and makes you serve the public

better.

So, just some brief comments for historical perspective for those that weren't here.

And again, to say thank you for all the great work that you've done.

Thank you, Superintendent Kennedy.

Thank you.

Mr. Desmond.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

And I'm going to start with thanking Mr. Reser Kennedy for that and for his leadership

in establishing really the structure of the Review Commission.

And of course, most importantly, Paul, I want to thank you for your leadership and the

other members of the Commissioner here.

I know one of my appointees is out there.

Thank you all for your service.

I do think notwithstanding the, I think inherent limitations of a review commission over

an independently elected sheriff, we have really made great strides, I think, in terms of

transparency, in terms of getting improving community trust in terms of what the sheriff

Department does in Sacramento County.

So I just want to chime in that really thank you for all your efforts, Paul.

And you've been a great leader at the right moment in this position.

So, and I'm very supportive of the changes as well.

And I know we're going to have probably more discussion and comments about the recent

changes to the Sheriff's Policy.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Professor Desmond.

Thank you.

Supervisor Cum.

Yeah, I know we're going to have the public comment on this item, but I just want to echo

the gratitude and thanks for those who serve on this commission.

I think it's a little surprising that it's tough to have people wanting to step up, although

I understand that there's a little bit of third rail aspect of scrutiny and being put

in a difficult position between policy, certainly where public safety is concerned.

But I think all of you who do do it and I appreciate the recommendations that you've made and

look forward to hearing more from you in the coming years.

Thank you.

Thank you, Supervisor Cum.

Thank you.

So I'll conclude and join my colleagues in thanking you, Paul, for your willingness to lead

the commission and for your report this morning.

And very helpful to, and insightful to help us better understand the activity and the

focus that the commission has relative to its charge and to assisting this board in

the public and the Sheriff's Office, quite frankly, to be I think better servants to the

broader public.

I will ask you because I've known you for a long time and I consider you a dear friend

and I value your opinion, obviously.

I've appointed you the District One representative to the commission, but you kind of gave us

your, I think, your well-stated formal references relative to the commission as it relates to

this last, very specific topic of how the Sheriff is responding to, or has implemented

a change to policy for mental health crisis response.

But I'm curious to know kind of your individual personal reflections on it.

Appreciate the question.

And it is the statement was on behalf of the commission.

These are just my personal thoughts.

First off, as noted, even in the comments, it was a very preemptory move.

Without consideration to consult with others, the Fire Department, the civilian clinicians,

such as within the county will and misresponse teams with the county's behavioral health unit,

it's a huge change.

The implications, I think it's a bit of a crisis because right now in the unincorporate

parts of the county, especially if someone is suicidal and has a gunner or weapon of any

kind and they're threatening to harm themselves, but not others, there's no response.

And that's not right anyway.

I also understand what the Sheriff's coming from and wants to protect his deputies from

being sued.

That's a different matter.

I just thought, could we have taken some time to have a collaborative discussion about

how what could be done to ensure that services are still there for all residents of our county.

And that's something that's really concerning to me.

The situation is around the interpretation of the court case that caused this issue to come

before all of us.

It's all in the interpretation.

And so I will share, there's a couple things.

One, at the state level, and I've done some research and asked a couple of other people

to, this is not an official study, but as far as we know, no other law enforcement agency

in the state has taken any similar move.

None as we know of.

That's none of the official statement.

It is we did a fair amount of research.

Everyone's still looking at it and determining how to address it.

Following that, chief Kathy Lester of the Sacramento Police Department was questioned on this.

She doesn't agree with the interpretation of the Sheriff's office.

And as stated, she considers it the duty of her officers to reply to these calls.

They're not changing their policy period.

So it's just, I think it was just preemptory without considering all of it.

The other thing is really getting a real significant legal review of that specific court case

and how it affects the county's operations, the sheriff's operations.

We want to protect our deaf communities.

I totally get that.

But as we all know with court cases and legal cases, the interpretation can be critical.

Personally, I would recommend that the county think about maybe getting an outside legal

opinion review of this court case just to understand its implications.

It wasn't done here in the state.

It was in Arizona.

I think we still fall under the same federal appeals court.

But there's implications there that you all know as the supervisors need to understand

in terms of your work with the Sheriff's office.

So I hope that helps.

That does.

I appreciate that very much.

Okay, again, I'd like to thank you, Paul, and thanks to the members of the commission that

have joined us this morning, Chambers and those that are not here, but have given themselves

their time and energy to again help fulfill the mission of the commission and to better inform

this board.

Great.

Thank you.

Madam Clerk, do we have any members of the public that would like to address the board on

this item?

We do.

First speaker today for this item is Patricia Wenzel.

This is, but I'm prepared for Wenzel before you again.

I'm here as a concerned citizen.

I happen to be a member of the League of Women Voters, Sacramento County Criminal Justice

Committee.

I'm not speaking on their behalf, but I'm informed by my participation in that group.

I want to speak to the issue of term limits.

It also applies to my membership on the middle health board.

Middle health board has three year terms, two terms, you offer a year and then come back

on.

I believe very strongly that a similar plan should be put in place for the Community Review

Commission for several reasons.

For example, I would not be on the middle health board except that we have term limits.

I think that it's important for new voices to come on to committees, especially ones

that are prominent in the public view and have an important role to play in connecting

to organizations in the community that hold a lot of power.

I think that it will allow for the reflection of changes in the community, changes in concentrations

of power and knowledge within the community.

It provides for the opportunity for new ideas and approaches and it prevents the consolidation

of power by a small group of people who may become, and I think that this kind of body

is susceptible to that kind of thing because it could become close to the sheriff's office,

be close to a particular group in the community.

The only way to stop that is to have term limits.

Some of the boards in the county have people who have been on them for 20 years.

I don't think that that's good for that board.

The one I'm aware of that that's a case of they have come totally unwilling to consider

outside views.

I really urge you to consider term limits that are effective and give them longer time

so that they can have that time to come up to speed without sacrificing the benefits of

term limits.

And you can see the recommendation from the League of Women Voters Sacramento in their

public comment that they submitted.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next speaker is Paul Oli.

Good morning.

I'm Paul Oli.

I'm the advocacy director for the League of Women Voters Sacramento County.

The League wants to thank the volunteer commissioners and reiterate our support for the commission

that was authorized by Assembly Bill 1185 that established both an oversight, a sheriff

oversight board, and an office of inspector general.

So we commend you for taking the first steps toward this sheriff accountability and transparency.

And we commend the commission for recognizing the need for some of these amendments.

Regarding the name change, the commission did not agree with us and I guess you didn't

either supervise our tenetty and I understand better your reasons now.

But we did recommend that we use the word oversight.

And we did that because we thought that it really reflected the intent of AB 1185.

On the powers and duties of the commission and inspector general, we think that both

should collaborate in reviewing and providing feedback regarding sheriff operations.

However, the existing language implies that the CRC must act as a subordinate to the office

of inspector general.

And the law doesn't really mandate this, so we think the language should reflect that

they are independent entities.

On the representation, we agree as defined in the resolution all those points are great

and it requires adequate solicitation of applicants to get there.

On turn limits, we also recommended adopting staggered terms, three year terms actually

and no more than two consecutive full terms.

Again, on behalf of the league and all of our members, we really thank you for investing

in the commission.

Thank you.

Next speaker is Alan Ash.

Alan Ash.

Yeah, hello.

I'm Alan Ash.

I'm chair of the Sacramento area chapter of the ACLU in a resident district three.

Good to see you in person.

Supervisor Desmond.

I'm opposing the name change to sheriff community review commission asking that you put sheriff

oversight in the name to reflect the role that the community wanted when advocating for

this commission.

I know what community advocates wanted because I spent four years working with many other

community members asking to get this commission created.

I started with other community activists making an off agenda comment at the board of supervisors

meeting in November 2017 asking for community based sheriff oversight board with subpoena

power.

We lobbied for AB 1185.

We held a town hall meeting on the topic of sheriff oversight in August 2019 that supervisor

certainly you attended.

We kept going to board of supervisors meetings through 2021 and every time we said what we wanted

over and over again was sheriff oversight board with subpoena power.

That's what we still want now.

Despite all that work, the current commission has been very timid about any oversight role

and the current chair even said that their September 17th meeting that the name Sac Sheriff

oversight would never pass the board of supervisors.

That's not what I remember you saying when you created the commission so I went back

and I watched all your discussions including the May 4th, 2021 meeting where you passed

the resolution creating it.

At that meeting, former supervisor, Super Ross literally said she was excited about an

oversight committee, quote oversight committee, supervisor Kennedy.

You referred to the old SOCAB as the old sheriff oversight committee and pointed out that

SOCAB was created with investigatory powers so it wasn't unprecedented to have that role.

The word oversight will not be adversarial but will instead be a step forward in meaningful

independent monitoring of the sheriff office policies and operations.

Oversight increases government accountability and transparency, enhances public safety

and builds community trust and law enforcement.

Otherwise, the commission is at risk of appearing to be just a public relations arm of the sheriff.

That's not why we worked for years to get the commission created, lobbied for AB 1185.

We hope you will reaffirm that oversight role the community wanted by changing the name

to Sacramento Community Sheriff Oversight Commission today.

Thank you.

Thank you.

My apologies to Ms. Nelson, our next speaker is Norman Nelson.

Good morning everyone.

My name is Norman Nelson.

I live in District 1.

My more detailed comments are submitted in writing yesterday.

I agree with the speakers before me concerning this item.

This also is an opportunity for the county to consider the efficiency and effectiveness

in delivery of sheriff and behavioral health crisis services through the budget and the

referral to the Department of Justice of the state of California.

My recommendations include the commission's duties, include recommendations and review

to the board of supervisors on the sheriff's department's compliance with laws,

state laws such as use of force, 50-150 de-escalation in custody jail investigations,

mitigation plans, and training due to the number of reasons including

after reviewing the use of force policies for the sheriff that was under the previous

sheriff and the ones that were just adopted January 2025 just a few weeks ago.

I found that there were some inconsistencies and problems that were called for the review by the

review commission and the community.

The current policies are not clear as to the use of force laws in California and they are not

specific enough for transparency, consistency of professional standards, accountability,

public trust, and operational effectiveness.

The state legislature addressed Graham versus Conner 1989 case and its deliberations prior

to the adoption of AB 392.

As such, it's questionable as to whether or not references and reliance upon Graham

versus Conner should be included in the county's use of force policies.

We are under California law, which includes AB 392.

The recent policy update effective January 2025 did not include community review into

my knowledge, it did not include review by the community review commission that you created.

Other comments having to do with community membership, I ask that the Board of Supervisors

do us due diligence in making sure that you appoint members that are representative of

the community and their concerns can be addressed.

I will, that's pretty much about it, but thank you for your time.

Thank you.

And our final speaker is Mr. Keone Bliss.

Fun fact, Supervisors, the acronym, NAICL stands for the National Association for Civilian

Oversight of Law Enforcement.

Consider the Sacramento Community Police Review Commission a cautionary tale of civilian oversight

being used as a political prop by fec-less elected.

Out of 186 recommendations, the 7 recommendations have received any discussion by the City

Council and only one received a direct vote.

And while among the most diverse civilian commissions in the city, the police review commission

has no teeth, such as subpoena power, investigative power, even staffing to accomplish anything

close to what the community review commission has the authority to do.

And one key difference, though, between the city commission and this one is that the city

commission does not allow any current or former law enforcement or elected officials who

already have existing authority to oversee sheriff's offices.

I really want to know, and I'm looking at you, Chair Surnum, why you are pretending like

state law doesn't mandate this board to oversee the sheriff's offices.

In fact, assembly bill 1185 resided into law on September 20 and 20 and took effect in

2021, given all California counties the authority to establish civilian oversight boards, which

may co-actually recommends.

And the unchecked power of local sheriffs lead to a profound lack of accountability, such

as here in Sacramento, where we have had no less than 35 in custody deaths under this sheriff

and a failure to discipline officers from his conduct and erosion of community trust,

as well as this a lack of transparency in sheriff budgets and oversight operations.

This in turn is a result in cost legislation, which is cost county taxpayers no less than

$100 million and place the county jail under federal oversight.

Nothing is stopping you from establishing the CRC as a legitimate oversight body that

you insist on protecting.

Please conclude.

Is this board as powerless in the face of a single elected official shows me either a

deep ignorance of state law?

Can you please conclude?

Or just a profound lack of respect for our collective intelligence.

Thank you.

That concludes our public comment.

All right, very good.

Thank you to everyone that addressed the board.

Suvazia Kenney.

Thank you, Chair.

Just a few things.

First of all, to the League of Women voters who are here today, it is an unusual position

for me not to be in 100% agreement with you, but we're really close.

Also want to point out that to the member of the ACLU that was here, that this was done

very much with, I mean, Marshall and I spent many, many, many phone calls as we were developing

this.

So this was very much done with ACLU support and participation.

In fact, if I walked away from today's hearing, I would think that the board, the commission

does not have subpoena power, which it does.

And it also does have, as it was pointed out, as opposed to other similar commissions staffing.

Regarding the one issue of, and some of this is semantics, but as I said, boards are important.

With the relationship with the OIG, the intention of that was because the OIG is already in place,

the OIG brings to that role by virtue of who he or she is, expertise and a certain amount

of background in the subject matter that maybe the board might not have, the commission

might not have.

But also is a functioning arm of the board of supervisors, which brings it even closer

to the board of supervisors.

And so that was there.

As far as in a support role, maybe not the best choice of words.

And I see where that can be seen as being subordinate to, never the intention.

It was more of, and so I would like to make a recommendation to the board that, and I believe

this is not substantive counsel.

And that's instead of the words in a support role too, in conjunction with the Office of Inspector

General, and if counsel's okay with that minor change.

That is fine.

Okay.

Then with that change in mind, I know there's others punched in, but I would like to make the

motion that we approve the recommendations by the commission.

Okay.

Okay.

We have a motion on the floor.

Mr. Resrie, can you.

Thank you, Chair.

Notwithstanding the motion on the floor, I just want to address some of the issues that

were brought up and also change my opinion on one of the items that's being considered

here today.

First of all, I disagree with the assertion that this board exists to be a public relations

arm of the sheriff.

However, it's not uncommon for members of the public to form opinions, not based entirely

on facts.

As Mr. Curtis said, as Mr. Curtis said, part of the role of this commission is to dig

in and understand the different sides of the issues so that they know the reasoning,

whether it's good reasoning or not, but at least the reasoning why policies get changed.

And with specific to the recent change in policy from the sheriff relative to mental health

calls, one of the issues that I do think we need to

understand whether it is real or imagined is how the dispatch of force affects qualified

immunity.

That is a real concern for these officers because it shifts liability from the agency,

be it the sheriff's department of the county as a whole, over to the individual.

And that, I think, is something of serious concern.

And then I want to address something Ms. Winsle brought up during public comments on items

not on the agenda, but I think it's relative to this item and particularly that topic,

the 988 training and the fact that we are looking at not diverting calls to 988 from 911,

but actually transferring them.

And so that it is a seamless effort in response to the person calling to actually get put

over to the appropriate level of somebody coming out.

And then with that, I would like to have this commission.

I believe this is an appropriate thing for them to take up would be, you know, we had

on the consent calendar here today, the addition of security officer positions within the

sheriff.

And so to explore whether or not we can bolster the CRWT with security officers that

remove the danger of lethal force being used, but still have a response from the sheriff's

department in tandem with the mental health clinicians or fire officers, obviously with,

with, you know, someone that can be a conduit for the sworn officer if they need to be dispatched.

And then the last one item that I'll touch on is where I have changed my opinion.

Before public comment, I said I agree with all the recommendations from the commission,

but I've adjusted that.

I do agree with the changing to three years and two terms, term limits.

And the reason being, even though term limits are indiscriminate and they take out good

members as well, I think the risk with some of these commissions is appointees get embedded

and it becomes difficult to remove them without creating a political quagmire for lack

of a better word.

So I understand there's a motion on the floor that does not encompass that, but those are

my thoughts.

Thank you, Chief Roger Hume.

So I'll conclude remarks.

Again, we have a motion in a second.

To dovetail off of Supervisor Hume's questions and concerns as it relates to the 98 phone

service.

There was something that came up in a briefing I had yesterday with the sheriff and the under

sheriff on the matter of the policy change to not respond to mental health crisis calls,

even those involving weaponry.

And it was an anecdote.

It was an example that was cited by the sheriff that not every member of the public knows

what the first appropriate way to contact someone that can help is.

So he cited the fact that someone had called 211 because they didn't know better.

And so they were put on hold.

So with regard to the comments that were offered earlier about the lack of promotion of the

98 condo it and informing educating the public about that, I think all of us would benefit

from one-on-one briefings about where we are relative to resource application in that

regard and how we can do better to kind of make sure that it's being used as intended.

As I, again, I referenced the briefing yesterday with the sheriff and under sheriff.

It actually introduced more questions from he than answers.

And so again, with the help of the commission and again, I want to thank Paul Curtis for

his comments today.

I think that will help us kind of navigate.

And when I say yes, not just the board, but certainly our executive team as well.

I can navigate how this board and the county separate from the sheriff's department offers

kind of a collective response to that because I think there are great many concerns that

remain at least I can speak for myself.

That I was extremely concerned when I first kind of heard the simple statement that the

sheriff's department is no longer responding to these mental health crisis calls involving

weapons and that on its face should concern anyone.

But obviously there's more to it than just that.

There's the interpretation of state law.

There is the fact that we have other jurisdictions as was cited in the presentation that have

taken a decidedly different tact as to how they implement state law.

So I think today's annual report and the specific reference to that particular current

challenge is timely and we ought to take advantage of the opportunity to learn from what we

can from the commission's great work.

So with that said, we have a motion and a second, please vote.

And that item does pass unanimously.

Very good.

And, Madam Clerk, before you continue to the next item, you're a little fast on the trigger

finger in terms of the start times for speakers.

What we, at least while I'm chair, I want the clock.

If you're going to manage the clock, please start it after someone introduces themselves

and what affiliation they're with to give them the full two minutes.

So it's not when you first get to the podium, we're going to start the clock.

That's after you let us know who you are, who you might represent.

And then as you get into the substance of your comments, that's when we'll start the clock.

Thank you.

All right, very good.

Next item, please.

The next item is the, an appeal of the Planning Commission's denial of a use permit, special

development permit and design review for a property located at 79,08 Hazel Avenue, approximately

490 feet south of the intersection of Cherry Avenue and Hazel Avenue and the Orangeville

community.

And I will need to take an oath for members of the public or anyone who wishes to address

the board about this item number.

So if you can, please stand to be sworn and raise your right hand.

The appropriate response is I do.

Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you are about to give this board is the truth

so help you God.

If you do not swear, do you so affirm?

When you go to the podium, please state your name for the record and the statement I

have been sworn.

Good morning, Chair Sourna and members of the board.

My name is Kimber Gutierrez.

I'm a senior planner with Planning and Environmental Review and I will be presenting the 7908 Hazel

Avenue Wireless Communications Facility Appeal to you all today.

Before I begin, I do just want to give a quick shout out to Irving Huerta, who is the project

manager for this project and who has done all of the work up to this point.

So I wanted to thank him for all of his hard work.

The project site is located at 5908 Hazel Avenue.

It's approximately 490 feet south of the intersection of Terry Avenue and Hazel Avenue in the

Orangeville community.

The site is currently developed with a single family dwelling and accessory dwelling unit

and two sheds.

The site is zoned as well as the surrounding area, Agricultural Residential 2 or AR2.

Surrounding uses include mainly single family residential in all directions with the exception

of a place of worship located just north of the site.

In September of 2017, there was a use permit approved to allow a 1200 square foot accessory

dwelling unit on site and staff also reviewed past any open code enforcement cases and

there are no active cases.

The entitlement request is a use permit special development permit and design review.

The use permit would be to allow a new wireless communication facility within the AR2 zoning

district, a special development permit to allow the proposed project to deviate from the

maximum height and the group one zone property minimum separation requirements, and then

a design review to determine substantial compliance with the Sacramento County County

wide design guidelines.

An initial study and mitigated negative declaration was prepared for the project and was released

for public review on October 18th of last year.

The impacts discussed include hydrology and water quality, biological resources, tribal

cultural resources, and hazardous materials.

The document did conclude that the project would result in a less than significant impact

with the implementation of mitigation measures.

Here is the site plan for the proposed project.

The wireless communication facility will be located inside a 40 by 40 foot lease area in

the rear yard of the subject property.

So it is located over here in this dotted outline.

The lease area will be secured with a new six foot tall chain link fence with slats and

will be accessed by the existing gravel driveway that also serves both the existing house

and the ADU.

As part of the special development permit request, the applicant is requesting to deviate

from the group one property separation requirement.

The requirement is three times the height of the tower.

So the tower being the tower proposed is 110 feet.

So therefore a 330 foot separation from group one zone property is required.

AR2 property is falls under that group one zone property.

So they would be required to do the 330 foot separation from all of the project boundaries.

So as you can see on the site plan, it might be a little bit hard to see the numbers, but

the tower would be 125 feet from the south and east and then 204 feet from the north.

Here is the lease area site plan.

Just some operational details.

The tower will operate 24 hours and will be unmanned.

There is a shelter also proposed containing two outdoor equipment cabinets and a backup

generator and all of that will be located within the lease area.

Here are the elevations.

The 110 foot tall tower will consist of 12 panel antennas and 12 remote radio units.

There is also a stealth design proposed as a broad leaf tree with faux bark leaves and

branches.

Again as part of the special development permit request, the applicant is requesting

to deviate from height.

The height allowance in the group one zone is 55 feet and as proposed the tower would

be 110 feet.

The next couple of slides cover some photo simulations that were prepared by the applicant.

On the top you will see the existing condition and on the bottom you will see the proposed.

So on the left side of the screen is looking east from Hazel Avenue and on the right is the

view from Creek Oaks Lane which is looking south east at the site.

So again top is existing and proposed.

There is a call out box showing where that proposed south tower will be located.

On the left here we have the view from Cherry Avenue looking south of the site and on the

right we have the view from Excelsior Avenue looking west.

And then the last photo simulations on the left are looking from Cherry Avenue to the

southwest and on the right view from Golden Gate Avenue looking northwest at the site.

The next two slides depict the coverage with and without the proposed 110 foot wireless

communication facility.

The applicant did provide some updated slides with the coverage maps which we will be

able to pull up during their presentation and look over.

For the purposes of this presentation this shows the current existing coverage without

the proposed tower.

So blue is showing reliable coverage outdoors only and indoor coverage less reliable.

Yellow is reliable coverage and transit indoor coverage less reliable and then green is the

reliable service inside and outdoors.

Here is the coverage that was provided with the proposed tower.

The existing coverage gap would be minimized to with the proposed tower in place.

In addition to these maps the applicant also provided coverage maps showing what the coverage

would be with a 55 foot tall tower that is included as attachment eight of the staff report

package.

And there is also an alternative site analysis completed which is included as attachment

seven.

This discusses alternative sites that were looked at for possible co-location and installation

of a new cell tower.

This is an application requirement for all cell towers and it also provides the reasoning

why those alternative sites were not considered or ultimately chosen for the proposed project.

The design review advisory committee met on August 8th of last year and they did recommend

that the planning commission find the project in substantial compliance with the design guidelines.

The Orangevale Community Planning Advisory Council met on September 3rd of last year and

they recommended that the planning commission deny the requested titlements with a 3-1 vote.

There were a number of questions from the CPAC on the deviation request and we did have

a number of public comments in opposition.

They did site concerns with the adequacy of the site analysis report.

The deviations being requested property values decreasing with the proposed tower in place

and also having the tower located in a predominantly residential area.

In addition to recommending denial of the project the CPAC did vote to pre-authorize a community

wide interest appeal with a 4-yes zero no should the planning commission approve the requested

project.

I'm going to interrupt real quick.

Thank you chair.

Very minor you can go back just because I always love these when negatives are positives

just so that it's clear to the public here that the planning commission recommends denial

was a yes 3-1 yes vote with a plan.

So yes down down is up right.

Thank you.

All right so that brings us to the planning commission.

The planning commission did meet on November 18th of last year.

There was quite a bit of discussion at the planning commission hearing.

There were several questions regarding the alternative site analysis report.

Why co-location at the existing tower nearby was not selected.

We'll concern over the lack of co-location by carriers just throughout the county and

concerns on the height of the proposed facility.

Following the commissioners questions the we had a number three members of the public speak

in opposition to the project.

Two of the commenters were representing 8149xcelsea avenue which was alternative site one in the alternative

site analysis and they expressed their desire for it to be considered for their site to

be considered for the proposed project and there is an existing tower at their site as

well.

There was also concern from these commenters over the noise generation from the proposed

generator and lack of community outreach done to address neighborhood concerns.

The other public commenter had concerns over the location of the tower within a residential

area, potential health and safety concerns from exposure to radio waves and that existing

coverage in the area is satisfactory for the neighborhood.

Following deliberation and discussion the commission did vote to deny the project and so

that denial motion was passed with a 4-yes-1-no vote.

Following that November hearing the applicant team epic wireless did file an appeal to the

clerk of the board's office on November 26 and they made a number of points in their

justification statement which I'll be going over and providing staff's response to each.

So the first being the proposed tower complies with all relevant development standards and

least intrusive to close its significant service coverage gap.

I just wanted to clarify this point is that the proposed project does comply with relevant

development standards only with approval of the special development permit request and so

that would be for the deviations to height and the separation requirements.

As discussed in the planning commission staff report the findings can be made in support

of the special development permit for these deviations and it should also be noted that

the applicant did offer to lower the height of the tower during the planning commission

hearing from 110 feet to 90 feet.

The second point was the tower's stealth design it minimizes visual aesthetic impact to

adjacent residents and the public.

During staff's review of the project you know the tower would be designed and constructed

to look like a large broad leaf tree to screen and minimize visual impacts it would

blend with the existing environment and will have the antennas completely sealed from

view.

The third point was the alternative site analysis thoroughly considered and ruled out potential

candidates including alternative site one which is 8149 Excelsior Avenue which to the

carrier's knowledge is still unavailable for co-location and not a viable site to close

the significant service coverage gap.

I will let the applicant and members of the public speak to that more specifically but

I did want to clarify that we did receive contradicting written public comment as well

as verbal testimony from the property owners at alternative site one.

As part of the application review and as part of the project review staff does not confirm

whether the various property owners of the proposed alternatives agree with the alternative

site analysis and we are also not involved in facilitating that discussion between the

applicant and the various property owners.

Lastly the applicant's justification statement stated that the planning commission's denial

should be reversed to avoid conflict with federal law.

Sorry no one.

Supervisor Desmond.

Thank you Mr. Chair.

On the all I get it.

Kim versus staff is not making a judgment call.

One way or another on the alternative site but can you just direct me again where that

alternative that other tower is located in relation to this one.

Yes.

Which.

So if I go back to.

It's Excelsior.

It's off Excelsior right?

Yes.

So I think hopefully we'll be able to see it on here.

So it's up.

There you go.

It's up here.

Okay.

Off Excelsior.

So just a little bit north east.

Yes.

Okay.

And then what is the what is the the size of the tower that's already there at that location?

I am not sure.

All right.

Well all I see some of these additional questions in the applicant.

I just want to get a little bit of clarification from you before I start asking them some questions.

Because I really I want to understand that why there is not a by-wall alternative at a site

that has includes a existing tower.

Thank you.

Okay.

And then the last point made again was that the planning commission's denial should

be reversed to avoid conflict with federal law.

As part of the board letter we did provide some additional detail regarding the Telecommunications

Act and kind of local jurisdictions purview when reviewing these types of projects.

The planning commission did make denial findings in support of their motion to deny the proposed

project.

And those denial findings are included in the Transmittle that's in attachment 12.

And they do relate to visual and aesthetic impact to adjacent residents and to the public

as well as the applicant's alternative site analysis not offering a meaningful comparison

of alternative sites.

So although the planning commission did deny the proposed project staff is continuing to

recommend approval given that the proposed project is consistent with the general plan,

community plan and the zoning code as conditioned.

The project is compatible with surrounding zoning and land uses and there are no significant

environmental concerns identified.

And although the project was not supported by the Orangeville CPAC, the project would bring

community benefit as the proposed cell tower would be a first net facility which provide

better emergency services and increasing network coverage in the area.

And then also aesthetically they are doing a stealthing of the broad leaf tree to blend

in with the surrounding trees in the area.

And also with that aesthetic, the aesthetic analysis, the draft did find the project consistent

with the design guidelines.

So staff is recommending the board take the following actions, approve the appeal overturning

the planning commission's denial of the proposed project, determine that the environmental

analysis prepared pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act is adequate and complete,

adopt the mitigation monitoring and reporting program, approve the use permit and special

development permit subject to findings and conditions and find the project in substantial

compliance with the design guidelines also subject to findings and conditions.

And with that I will conclude my presentation and can answer any questions.

Thank you, Camer.

Any further questions of staff before we hear from the applicant and members of the public?

All right.

Seeing none.

So you have to wish to address the board.

Morning, supervisors.

Morning.

Andro Lisa with Epic Wireless Group representing AT&T Mobility.

I have been sworn.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak here this morning and to address supervisors here

on this topic.

I want to thank Kimber and Irving, staff of Sacramento County Planned Department has been

great torque with.

We've been at this for a couple of years now and we've been going back and forth with

them and it's just been a pleasure.

As you all are aware, I'm sure there's a multitude of county review process that we go through

when proposing a facility like this and we received a lot of really great positive

feedback, a lot of encouragement of location placement, design of the facility, being a stealth

pole placement within the parcel that we've chosen as well.

So we appreciated that feedback throughout this process, throughout this application process.

The main goal for AT&T here is really to fill what they've identified as a significant

gap in service and their coverage.

Their main objective is to provide services to the community in this case, its community

of Orangevale.

And so as they review their coverage constantly and identify areas in their network that

need improvement, this specific location was identified as a significant gap in coverage

and they found that the location that's before you that we're proposing and looking for

your approval on is the least intrusive means to fill that significant gap in coverage.

A couple things that I think is important to note.

My office, we've been doing this, Epic Wireless Group has been in business for over 25 years.

Myself has been doing this for going on 15.

We have a lot of experience in this area.

Our office is located in the city of Folsom, a lot of folks in my office live in the city

of Folsom.

This is our community, this is right in our backyard.

In fact, I drive by this site a handful of days a week after I dropped my kids off to school.

So we're very familiar with the community, we're very familiar with how we're placing this

and the visual impacts that it may have on the neighbors and the community at large.

There was something brought up as far as the alternative side analysis and specifically

alternative site number one being the existing facility.

Supervisor Desmond, I believe you asked the height of that facility.

It's a 106 foot tall, unstealthed monopole facility owned by American Tower.

That is the first place we went.

It's very common in our line of work to identify existing structures first and foremost

when trying to co-locate is the terminology we use co-locate and tennis and equipment

on existing infrastructure as much as we possibly can.

My office actually reached out to representatives from American Tower dating back to March of 2023.

We believe you're not, we've been at that for a couple of years now.

I'll quote the feedback was, it sounds as low, the renewal negotiations are not progressing

as well as we had hoped.

We're looking to relocate our asset to a nearby location.

I don't believe we have an alternative candidate yet.

With that information, my office expanded our search and began to look at alternative properties

that we could possibly locate this facility on.

As I believe staff mentioned, all properties in this coverage gap are zoned AR2.

So they all have the same limitations.

There are no other locations that have a different zoning designation that may be more suitable

for a wireless facility.

They all have the same zoning restrictions, height restrictions, setback restrictions.

So what my office did was look for the least intrusive means, which is typically larger lots,

heavily treeed lots, a place within that lot that we could provide the most separation

from adjacent properties, which is what we've done here, which is centrally locate the facility

to gain the largest setback that we possibly can from surrounding properties.

We identified a location within the lot to locate the facility adjacent to an existing 90-foot tall eucalyptus tree.

And knowing that, we designed the facility to match.

We tried to utilize a tree species that is similar to that, a eucalyptus, foe eucalyptus,

or foe broadleaf tree design as what we used in an effort to better blend it with the environment,

as opposed to maybe a conical pine-fold pine-looking tree or some other non-stealth design.

We didn't stop with the initial communication with American Tower.

We went back to American Tower just a year afterwards as our pursuits continued

because we wanted to ensure we did our due diligence.

And an email exchanged dating April 2024.

The feedback from American Tower representatives, and I quote was,

we're likely going to relocate this site.

I've reached out to the team that handles our relocations to see if they have an alternative location selected and timeline.

End quote.

We heard testimony at the Planning Commission hearing from the attorney that represents the property owner

that the American Tower side is located on.

In that testimony, he acknowledged that they have not secured a lease agreement with American Tower

that they are in fact still under negotiation.

And that expires just next year, 2026.

My office again, prior to this hearing, reached out to American Tower

and received feedback as early as yesterday,

stating that they to date have not extended the lease agreement and are not in contract beyond 2026.

So in an effort to represent AT&T and to fill their significant gap in coverage,

which is again, something they have been at for a couple of years now,

we continue to pursue this application that's before you today in hopes that you'll support it and allow the community to receive benefit.

In addition to identifying the American Tower location,

not having a lease extending beyond 2026 after multiple attempts,

we also dug into how can we best serve the community and fill that significant gap in coverage

and working with AT&T representatives and their engineers.

We identified that actually moving our site location further south was going to better fill that significant gap in coverage.

So much so that it actually would serve a population approximately twice as large

as the location that American Tower has their facility.

And it also serves very specific community areas that are really beneficial.

And I'll just name a few of them, but our Lady Catholic Church would receive service from AT&T at the current location

that it would not at the ATC location.

New beginnings, Christian Church, off Hickory Avenue,

Carlton Senior Living Facility, which is off of Oak Avenue,

that's an assisted living and a memory care facility that's been in place since 1985.

Oak View Community Elementary School, which houses approximately 426 students at the age of K through 5 grades,

Lewis Pastry Middle School, O'Rough Elm Avenue, that's about 650 students between the ages grades of 6 and 8th.

Orangeville Amphitheater, which is now Dory Amphitheater, as well as a disc park that's adjacent to that,

would also benefit from the proposal location.

And finally, approximately 76 homes, dubbed Almond Acres, which is a medium density residential development in that area,

which as I'm sure you're all familiar with Orangeville, doesn't have a lot of dense residential development,

but in this specific area, it's approximately southwest of our proposed location,

would receive improved service by the proposed location that would not receive the same coverage at the alternative one location.

So, just main points to make also, I think mentioned by staff, this is a first-net facility.

It's a federally funded program that AT&T partners with local emergency responders to ensure they have a dedicated communication line,

so that in the event there's an emergency, what ends up happening is we have kind of an uptick in calls and data usage,

and people wanting to get communicating to either first responders or loved ones or whoever,

and what it does is it puts a drag on the network.

First-net sites have a dedicated channel for emergency first responders so that we can ensure communication stays open.

First responders get there in time and provide the services that we so desperately rely on them to.

I think, aside from that, and I think I've made my point as to why we're at what we're trying to do,

it's, I want to say that we really do make a strong effort to do this right and to do right by the community

and to find the best location and to really design these.

At the end of the day, it is a communications facility. We understand that.

There's only so much we can do with concealment methods and design methods, but I just want to make sure that

the supervisors recognize that we really take our jobs here, so they really do try to put our best foot forward

and serve the community and do right by them.

So with that, I'm happy to answer any questions you have, and I appreciate your time.

We have a couple of supervisors in the queue here. I'm going to lead off here, though.

Thank you for the presentation.

I'm curious to understand from your perspective as a carrier.

What has been your experience in other jurisdictions where there have been requirements for co-location?

So as a matter of standard planning policy,

anyone that wishes to expand their service, cover service gaps, first must exhaust.

It's not a, please do, it's you shall. Exhaust, look at co-locating and if, you know,

hypothetically, if everyone were operating under those same rules, my estimation is we wouldn't

necessarily be here. So do you have any thoughts on that?

I think as an industry standard, it's common practice to co-locate on existing facilities and

I'm not talking about practice. I'm talking about codification of it's a requirement.

Either you're going to co-locate or you're not going to get approval.

I think that there would probably be some case law that would be challenging for that to get

codified and not be challenged by the wireless industry as a whole. I think in the event that co-location

serves and fills that significant gap in coverage that they're looking to fill, then absolutely the

industry practices to co-locate. In the event, it doesn't fill the significant gap in coverage

that the carrier is obligated to identify and then has the right to be able to fill. I think you

may be flirting with prohibition of service, which I think there's been plenty of court cases that

have looked at that and seen that as a prohibition of service at times. Without seeing the specifics,

Chair, I can't really see the slide. Court cases aside though, cities and counties still have

authority over land use periods. So I'm not suggesting that we necessarily do this, but I did

mention to the Planning Director yesterday, my briefing on this particular matter.

The question of why don't we have some other means than simply leaving it to the goodwill

between carriers to co-operate and co-locate and thereby minimizing the number of

towers that appear in our communities, and especially those that are outside the expectation in

terms of a normal height, which is why I bring this up to Verizon County.

Thank you, Chair. All right, so we're in receipt of a whole package and letter from the

Appellants Council of Porter Wright. And in it, they make what looks to be a fairly compelling

argument regarding where this is a conflict with federal law, where we to deny the appeal.

They state in, you know, they quote, of course, the Telecommunications Act 1996, City of

Rential Palace Baraday's, City of Anacortis, and where it says, you know, if you look,

when a locality rejects a primafacial showing, it must show that there are some potential

available and technology, technologically feasible alternatives. My point is that

by laboring the legal argument too much to our council, I'd like to get your opinion

on that argument that's been made here today. So I have not had an opportunity to review

the correspondence that you are referring to. I did see an email last night that included

updated coverage maps, but I will say that the Telecommunications Act and the case law

is very clear about the limitations that local jurisdictions have as it pertains to these particular

towers. I did communicate with our planning team when they drafted the staff report and

the information that is contained on pages eight and nine about the limitations are absolutely

accurate. The county, even though it has land use authority, cannot impose a ban on telecommunication

services and it cannot impose restrictions that amount to a ban. We also must accommodate requests

when providers are trying to fill a significant gap in coverage. We are limited as to the actions

that we can take. Okay, so just because I enjoy pinning lawyers down in public,

what I'm reading and hearing is that we put ourselves at some significant potential legal risk

should we deny this appeal. I think that that is accurate. Thank you.

Mr. Vice President. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate the discussion and certainly,

obviously we don't take lightly any decision that might expose us any kind of risk, but I'm

still struggling with all the places you listed. I think you've listed the school,

theater, retirement home. I think you said that alternative, even if you were able to work

something out with that other carrier and the property owners, we knew that lease and then co-locate

there, did you say that that coverage would not be sufficient to cover all of those places,

even though it's only a third of a mile away? Yeah, correct. I know it's, you know, the way

the technology works, a lot of its line of sight, a lot of its impacted by trees and different

topography and things, and so it does have, even though it seems relatively close, it does have a

substantial impact, especially the corridor of Hayes Lavenew, the congestion along Hayes Lavenew,

the amount of traffic that we see there, the amount of development that has occurred, especially

with new churches and I think some planned schools and things in the area, the increase in volume

that we're seeing really impacts the footprint that that coverage can have.

That's, excuse me for being a little bit, you know, questioning that because it's flat,

it's not like there's maybe there's some trees, but there's not any other topography,

only a third of a mile away, it just is surprising to me and I guess for staff,

do we rely exclusively on the statements or information provided by the applicant when determining

these coverage-related issues? Okay, I see Kimber not in your head. So we don't, there is no

independent body who can opine on well. If they could co-locate at this tower, that's only a

third of a mile away, it would actually provide adequate coverage. That's right. Okay, so we do

rely on the applicant, because it just seems to me that your issues with that other carrier

and the landowner in terms of not having a lease, I understand it might be more difficult to

nail that down, it all sounds like possible room for negotiations, hearing about it, but you're

saying that even if you could co-locate, it would not provide the coverage we need. And I will,

I did chuck a little bit when you mentioned that epic wireless year in full sum, so this is right

in your backyard. I think this is, if this was literally in your backyard, you might have a

little bit different perspective on the project, but you know, appreciate your presentation. And I'm

also very eager to hear, you know, the thoughts of the district four supervisor, where this is

proposed to be located. Thank you. Supervisor Rodriguez. I do have some questions and comments,

and this is might be more of an elementary question. So because one of the, I thoroughly read the

the reports that came in, and so you have, though, you know, the recourse in the 110 foot

height exceeds it, but you know, the standard is 55, it exceeds it 210 with the potential to go an

extra 20 feet, which would potentially make it 130 feet. So is there a possibility that because

of the height, the height seems to be one of the major issues, I think, overall. And the fact that

this is a rural part of Orangevale, that would, it would be very apparent that this would,

there would be a cell tower there. So it would change, I think, the aesthetics of the area.

Is there a possibility, and this is where my elementary question comes in, to do 255 foot towers

that would cover the area? Because I get that coverage is important to the schools and the churches

and the areas around there, but is so that it does not exceed that 55 foot height limit?

Yeah, I didn't look at doing 255 foot towers in a general location. We are looking to

fill it with the least intrusive means, and they're defining that as one facility

to fill the significant gap and coverage rather than two. I do know it's common practice to seek

deviations from that 55 foot height limit. My office has done it multiple times and worked with

Sacramento County staff and received recommendations. I do recommend, I do understand what you're saying

and some of the feedback that we've received from the community. And as staff mentioned,

my office at the Planning Commission, hearing did acknowledge that we had verified with some of

the engineers that we could reduce the height of the tower. I believe they said 90 feet, but 91

to 91 feet, and still achieve the coverage goals that we need and to fill the significant gap

in the coverage. That is something that would help limit the visual impact. I know if you've

looked at some of the coverage and some of the, some of the photo simulations that we presented

in the package, in many areas, the facility is not visible at all due to some of the tree lines

in the area. So dropping again, approximately 20 feet would be substantial for visibility concerns.

And so we have confirmed that we can do that, and if that's something that allows this board to

offer their support, then we'd be happy to make that adjustment. Thank you.

Supervisor Kim. Thank you, Chair. I'll say my comments to the public comment, Perry, but I did

have a one question relative to something that you just said in analyzing the least intrusive

means. You said they're defining that as one facility. Who, to whom are you referring?

AT&T in their outside council. Okay. Thank you.

All right. Thank you. Thanks again. All right. Manler, we have members of the public.

I'm going to speak. We do. We have several members of the public. The first speaker is Sally Webber.

And again, a friendly reminder to please introduce yourself with the phrase that you have been sworn.

I am Sally Webber. I have been sworn. I live at 89.51 golden gate avenue. I am shocked because I am

coming before you totally unprepared with what needs to be said. Yes, it would be too noisy because

the diesel, the generator. Yes. There is uncertainty about all the white papers that have been written

about the frequency and all whether that's healthy. The big thing, there are two big things. One is,

doesn't look like anybody has been out there to look at it. My house, I abut it at the

southeast corner and the northwest corner. And we measured it, my nephew and I, and I am 100 feet

below what it should be. I am 230 feet away from that facility. And looking at my neighbors to

the north, they are so much closer. This is a residential community. They are not honoring the

variances and this should not be allowed to be in a residential community. It sounds rural,

it sounds semi-veral, it sounds two acres. No. The people to the north of me are like 25 feet from

the lot line. They are less than 200 feet. I don't have that exact measurement. I know my measurement

is 100 feet less than what it should be. And I question whether it is absolutely necessary. I

question whether this significant gap when I was here before someone spoke and said there is no

significant gap. Everything, I think I am in the way. It has to be 110 feet because my house,

where my house is on the back of my property and it comes up close, I am on a hill. So to get over

my hill and to reach the area, they have to get higher than my little rise in the property.

The big thing that I am hearing is that there now appears to be a significant risk for you to be

legal. There is a significant legal risk. I cannot believe that there is a federal law that would

allow them to put this in my community. Do you mean that you are saying that you have to allow

this to put in here because the federal law says that you have to put in? I am just, I am shocked.

I am asking you to continue to deny this. It does not belong in this area. And we live in a lovely

quiet area. Thank you so much. I am sorry I went over and thank you for your service. Thank you.

Colin Coltrane. Colin Coltrane. Hi, I am Colin Coltrane and I have been sworn. I am speaking

today in support of Sally Webber's comments. Thank you for allowing me to be here. I am a state

regulator and environmental scientist. I am very concerned about the special development permit

for the following three reasons. One, it is not minor. It proposes a setback which is much smaller

than that normally required. And the proposed tower would be much closer than it should be to dwellings

for such a tall tower. Number two, I believe that there are likely to be negative impacts from the

noise of the standby generator on residences at this close distance. And number three, I do not know

what long-term health or other environmental impacts a tower of the proposed size might have on

the immediate area without an adequate setback. I helped Sally measure and estimate the distances

she reported in her statement so I can confirm their accuracy. And I can personally attest that I

have experienced no issues accessing emergency services around the location using existing cell towers.

I urge you to deny the special development permit has to extreme and the tower unnecessary. Thank you.

Thank you.

Blake Star.

My name is Blake Star and I have been sworn. The commission and their legal council are aware of the

FCC regulations and they still voted no overwhelmingly. The FCC requires least intrusive means.

And a new tower alternative one is the least intrusive. There's no one else nearby other than the

landowner. The alternative one location will work in their own alternative site analysis. The

applicant did not state that it was outside the area of coverage that they're looking for. Despite

what they tried to say today, it is in their site analysis report that alternative one would work for

the area. It's quite simple. The proposal case for a new tower impacts community members

at the proposal location. A new tower that impacts a new power that will impact no one exists.

Both would provide first net to the area. No one is against first net nor will anyone die from

this denial. They will force the applicant to identify one of the four least intrusive means that

has been presented to them to build the tower responsibly. Don't be fooled by the 90-foot tower

compromise under FCC regulations. They can do another 20% on top of that height without coming back

to the county. A vote to deny this will tell your constituents that you will make sure that

corporations have to maintain doing the bare minimum by law before invading their communities in

the future. And they cannot seek to burden homeowners so that they can get cheaper rent when a

better alternative exists for the community. A vote for this project will tell companies that

an alternative site analysis will no longer be required to take seriously as you guys will just

over appeal the commissions or your commissions recommendation or denial actually. The commission

went through this exhaustively for hours. They have their own council. They know the FCC regulations

and they still voted to deny it. Even though they don't deny these things, I don't know if you

guys have ever seen an appeal from the commission denying a tower but there's a reason why these

don't come here often. Thank you. Thank you. The next speaker is Larry Star.

Hello. I'm Larry Star. I haven't been sworn. I represent the trust that has the current owner

of the easements associated with the close alternative site. Alternative site one. Nothing has changed

from the night the supervisors made their original decision. Attachment 16 ignored that we are

still willing to work with Epic American tower company and AT&T and our viable site to meet AT&T's

objectives. Epic does not provide any new information on why the existing tower cannot be used.

There is no basis to overturn the planning commissions denial and burden the residents orange

veil with yet another tower. Restrictions to height are not a ban. So they talk about legal, you can't

ban this new tower. Holding them to the current restrictions of 55 feet and all the other things they're

trying to get way is not a ban. So that's all I have to say to them. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Star. And our final speaker this morning is Sherry Star.

Hi, my name is Sherry Star and I have been sworn. I recommend denying this new tower.

I believe that the current tower is a viable site. I own property on peerless avenue and I do not

want the community to have to deal with another tower. I have actually lived within close proximity

to the existing tower and those diesel generators are very loud. Thank you.

Thank you.

That is all the comments that I have. Thank you, Madam Clerk.

Supervisor Him. Thank you, Chair. Let me begin by saying my wife will tell you I use this

thing too much. So I am not anti-self-phone. I am not anti-self-tower. I am not anti-coverage.

I don't believe in the research that I've done that a lot of the concerns that people who are

opposed to such things throw out there as reasons to deny. To Miss Weber's point, there is

federal law. It's called the Telecommunications Act of 1996 and it says things that you cannot

use to deny towers, such as health, aesthetics, other means and you cannot outright ban them. That

being said, I will respectfully disagree with county council's opinion because we have taken

this exact action previously on a proposed tower in district five. My concern is that if we don't

be consistent, then we are potentially opening ourselves up for risk. I certainly don't want to

create a case-by-case situation where now every tower that comes forward in district five is

some sort of a popularity contest of whether or not it gets approved or gets denied.

And so as my district two colleague has been fond of saying this morning, words matter.

And there are two things that in the staff report are within quotations and that is significant

gap and least intrusive means. I'm not arguing against significant gap. I think that the shown

the coverage maps that we've seen, if there does exist a significant gap that needs to be filled.

And I don't want to encourage the applicants to fill that. However, least intrusive means is a

subjective determination that to this point, as admitted from the podium, has been determined

according to AT&T. However, in the staff report, it says that the alternative sites comparison

has been done, has been conducted, and that the site selected is the least intrusive of the sites

considered. Not arguing that point. This may or may not be the least intrusive site. However,

and here's what I am basing my position on this morning, the county has development standards

relative to the height and relative to the setback. This is asking for a special development permit

that would exceed that height and thereby not meet the required setback because of the height

of the tower. And so if our code is too restrictive, then we should look at changing the code.

As it stands, we have a code in place. This tower does not meet that code. And so I will support

upholding the planning commission's determination, but I would encourage the applicant to either look

at meeting the code or putting in more towers has been suggested or any other technological work

around that gets them to where they need to be to close that significant gap. But I will not

support staff's recommendation to overturn the planning commission decision. And I would make a

motion therein. Okay. Okay. It moved and seconded.

Supervisor Rodriguez, do you have any comments? No, no, I cannot have said it better than my colleague.

Supervisor Hume. Okay. I will just chime in real quick. I agree. I think

Supervisor Hume was extremely articulate and is rationale for positioning holds. I share the

position. Maybe I showed my cards a little bit with my line of questioning earlier. And I understand

County Council is doing her job to protect the board, protect the county from legal liability.

However, as is the case with most law that we abide by and govern by, there's oftentimes

various shades of gray not often as are things as black and white as we think they are.

And I think this is kind of one of those instances where, you know, what constitutes a ban?

It's the reason why I openly question again why we don't have anything in our toolbox,

planning toolbox, that would compel carriers to co-locate and not just leave it up to, you know,

what side of the bed they woke up on that day. Because the last thing I want to see in my county

is proliferation of, and I'll be honest, they're ugly, these ugly cell towers. And you could

dress it up any way you want, any kind of plastic species of trees, whatever you think is going to

try and conceal it. I think it's kind of a farce to think that those things actually work as

intended in terms of trying to mute the aesthetic of the tower. But I got to believe we can do better.

So I will be joining the maker of the motion and the seconder in upholding the planning

commission's position. Right, we have a motion and a second on the floor, please vote.

And that item passes unanimously. All right, very good. Thank you.

Thank you. Next item on the agenda is for the board to consider nominations.

So we will be continuing to February 25th, 2025, nominations for the Equal Employment Opportunity

Advisory Committee, the Human Services Coordinating Council, Sacramento Environmental Commission,

Public Health Advisory Board, and the Recreation and Park Commission. We'll also be continuing to

March 11th, Carmichael Oldfoot Hill Farms Community Planning Advisory Council,

Cordova Community Planning Advisory Council, Developmental Disabilities Planning Advisory Council,

Orangeville Community Planning Advisory Council, and the Sacramento County Mental Health Board.

Continuing to the meeting of March 25th, 2025, is the Building Board of Appeals,

Cosumnus Community Planning Advisory Council, the Delta Citizens Municipal Advisory Council,

Maternal Child and Adolescent Health Board, and the Sacramento County Treasury Oversight Committee.

We will be accepting nominations today from the Community Planning or the County Planning

Commission Supervisor Rodriguez. I'm sorry, can you repeat which one that is for?

This is for the County Planning Commission. This is your district.

Oh, please continue to February 25th.

Continue to February the 25th. Thank you.

Supervisor Desmond, for the Fair Oaks Community Planning Advisory Council. You have six positions.

Anybody in?

I'm volunteering. Let me know. Please, nominate Rebecca Fitzgerald to fill the seat being

vacated by C. Bowman and continue the remainder to March 25th.

Thank you. And for the real Linda Alveta Community Planning Advisory Council,

we're looking for a nomination from you to Supervisor Rodriguez.

Sorry, I shouldn't get distracted by reading things. Can you repeat which one that is for?

That's okay. The real Linda Alveta Community Planning Committee.

I nominate John Todd. Thank you.

For the Sacramento County Youth Commission, there's five seats, one from District 1s,

or Supervisor Surnah. Please continue to March 25th.

One for the seat for District 2, Supervisor Kennedy.

Please continue to February 25th.

And we have two seats for District 4, Supervisor Rodriguez.

Please reappoint Brooklyn, perwit.

And would you like to wave process on that?

No.

Okay. And then would you like to continue the other position?

Yes, tell February 25th.

Tell February 25th.

And so we have one seat for District 5, Supervisor Hume.

Please reappoint Joyce Lynn and wave the process.

Second.

Thank you.

And that does pass unanimously.

For the Sacramento Housing and Redevelopment Commission,

we have one seat for District 5, nomination, Supervisor Hume.

Please continue to February 25th.

Thank you.

And for the Sunrise Recreation, Park District, we have one seat for District 4, Supervisor Rodriguez.

I nominate Andrew Saunders.

Thank you.

And that concludes nominations.

Thank you.

I have one for the Annelib CPAC.

Is that one?

From the additional.

I don't see anything on my list, but

okay, that's fine.

That's fine.

That's fine.

We do all receive a common appointment sheet, do we not?

You do receive your staff receives a vote sheets.

And then they give them back to us, but they make different notes.

Every district is a little different, but you do receive which boards were

nominating and appointing to.

I would respectfully ask that maybe we consider making it a common looking,

common with common verbiage document that gives us all very clear understanding of appointments.

I would also respectfully ask that if there is going to be any consideration of wave

the process, certainly it's at the discretion of the board member,

whether they wish to interject that at the appropriate time orally.

But I don't think it necessarily needs to be a question coming from the clerk.

Absolutely.

We can do that.

We can work with your chiefs of staff on that.

Thank you.

Mr. CEO.

Thank you, Supervisor Saunders.

No comments today.

All right, very good.

I'm going to try and get us out here before noon here.

So I do have a comment to more just sharing general information,

it's procedural information.

I think I have chimed in already in terms of my interest,

and I think the interest of the board to utilize Wednesdays a little more frequently than we have

in the past, especially as we gear up for some important land use decisions later in the year.

So kind of reflecting back on the way the board used to function a couple of decades ago

with the reservation of Wednesdays for planning matters.

I've asked through the CEO's office and working with the clerk of the board that we look to

using those Wednesdays a little bit more liberally this year.

So as not to get rushed or have Tuesday meetings that go on exceedingly long.

In addition to that, I've also been working with the CEO's office and the clerk of the board's office

to find ways that we can run our meetings a little more efficiently both in open session and closed

session. I'll start with closed session first, but it's not lost on me that there have been

many, many times where we are in closed session and we have our attorneys in waiting.

We have their attorneys in waiting. We have folks that are professional people that

just to put bluntly cost to county, consider a considerable amount of money on a billable hour

basis. And as we all know, our respective conference rooms on the second floor and those on

other floors, including the CEO's office and conference room, have the technology now that we can

have those professional individuals join us remotely and perhaps at lower cost so that we don't

get charged for in transit. So I've asked the CEO to give some thought to how we consider implementing

that particular change to how we proceed with closed session. It also gives individuals the ability

perhaps to be productive while they wait versus just holding down a chair in our waiting rooms.

As it relates to open session, I have suggested, let me bring this up so I can slide it back

or out here. I have suggested that we consider moving some of the sections of our agenda around such

that we don't leave those that are awaiting presentations along wait in chambers until we get to

the ceremonies that we are all fond of at the lectern where we writefully honor whether it's

our employees that have years of service, that we want to celebrate or members of the community that

are retiring or Eagle Scouts or whatever it may be. For too long, I've sat from this day and

looked out over the audience and watched people wait around for sometimes hours to be recognized.

And some have actually been forced to leave because the delay was too long and we have to put it over.

So what I've suggested again working through CEO's office, Clerk of the Board's office, is that we

consider bringing presentations as a timed separate matter that would follow off agenda.

And here's kind of the catch that we approve any resolution that is intended to honor someone that's

being presented with that resolution. We do that at the meeting before we actually do the

presentation. Therefore, we don't have to wait for consent to adopt the resolution to offer the

resolution. So that way we can kind of go quicker. It also, if you recall, means that our staff who might

be introducing someone that's being honored with the resolution, again using the example of

retirement or years of service, they don't have to wait around being unproductive, waiting in

chambers. And so that is going to be more formalized in kind of a rollout of the schedule of

open session meetings in the not too distant future. We hope to try it out. Maybe as early as

first meeting in March. But I wanted to use this time to inform my colleagues that we're going to

try and do things just a little more efficiently. And I'm very interested in keeping staff time,

quite frankly, at a minimum in these chambers when they're waiting for timed items as well. And so

I think this helps us get timed items a little bit better and kind of tighten up their expectation

of when their item or issue could be hurt. So I just wanted to offer that. Any others?

I think that's a really good idea just because anytime you increase efficiency, that's a positive

thing. But even in my former council, we did presentations after business from the floor and that

seemed to flow very well. Yeah, I think the here, the linchpin to making that successful is seeing how

how well we can get everyone used to the fact that the presentation of a resolution just won't

happen at the same meeting that it's adopted at. So it's kind of putting a stagger on it so that

we can get right to presentations. We don't have to wait for anything else to occur before we

offer those presentations. I want to thank David and Nicole for their help with all of this.

Right. If there is no further business before the board, we will stand adjourned and we do have

closed session on the second floor. Second.