Good morning.

I would like to call to order this meeting on the Sacramento County Board of Supervisors.

For Tuesday, February 25th, 2025, Madam Clerk, will you please call the roll and establish

a quorum.

Supervisor Kennedy?

Here.

Desmond?

Rodriguez?

Here.

Hume?

Here.

And Chair Serta.

Here.

And we do have a quorum.

Great.

Would you like to read our statement, please?

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

close captioning.

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

and Direct TV universe cable systems.

It is also live streamed at Metro14live.setcounty.gov and can be heard on 96.5 FMKUBU radio.

Today's meeting will be repeated Friday, February 28th at 6 o'clock PM on Channel 14 and

viewed at youtube.com MetroCable 14.

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

civility, and use of courteous language.

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

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

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

Each speaker will be given two minutes 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

comment.

Comments made by the public during Board of Supervisors meetings may include information that could

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

voter registrations, and elections.

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

made during these 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 waves the 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 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 sackcounty.gov.

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

If you need an accommodation pursuant 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 sackcounty.gov.

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

Thank you, Madam Clerk.

Would now will you please join supervisor Kennedy rise for the pledge.

Okay, again I'd like to welcome everyone who has joined us here this morning in chambers

for our hearing, for our meeting.

Again, friendly reminder, we certainly welcome your full participation in today's meeting.

We do ask respectfully that you please keep your comments to no more than two minutes and

we have that limit in place so that anyone who wishes to address the board on any matter

that is on or off our agenda has the opportunity to do so.

So with that, Madam Clerk, first item.

First item is public comments relating to matters not on the posted agenda and we do have

a few members of the public that are here.

First member is Lance Hatfield.

Mr. Hatfield.

We'll move to Richard O.

Good morning board.

I'd like to address this question to you this morning.

What form of government do we have in this country?

Usually the answer that I will receive and I'm not putting words in your mouth is it's

a representative democracy.

Now, this is an important question because it gets to the root of who we are as a people

and as a nation.

The founders of this country in deliberating knew the history of democracies from the

Greek city states all the way through history.

Its mob rule 51% can do whatever they want.

It always ends in tyranny, always.

This is a constitutional republic.

California entered this union of states in 1850 as a constitutional republic where the

constitution is the highest law of the land.

It is democracy in sense that all its citizens can vote and a majority prevails but only under

the framework of the US Constitution.

I just want to make that point clear because we've had confusion over this in the recent

election where non-citizens vote that undermines our constitutional republic.

It's forbidden in both US and California.

And also, for example, in Sacramento becoming a sanctuary city again, doubling down on

this that is unconstitutional.

And we read the court cases and also the fines and punishments due to that.

Now the most recent attempt to escape this is found in a letter by Cal Exit to the

Rob Bonta and they appealed to proposition which we have a voter initiative since 1911

to put propositions on the ballot and the voters can decide that.

And I want to read the letter that I'm not out of time.

I yield.

Thank you.

Okay.

Anyway, this is the highest law of the land.

Thank you.

We'll be back in a minute.

Hello, everyone.

Rich Patrick Phil Rose Zerio, who's new.

I didn't see her last time.

And Pat Hume, hello.

I was here before and Rosario missed it and some other people did see it.

But I was concerned with our elected officials being complicit in pushing disinformation on

people.

I was concerned with the fact that they were not going to do anything about the vaccines

and the horrible things.

As these things come through your hands, you either give it a stamp of approval or you

stay something, you do something.

Why aren't you doing anything?

I've lost myself that.

I wonder and I think I know why.

This is a career choice where you're in line to want the betterment for yourself, the

important table.

The best the world has to offer.

And you look at me and you're probably thinking, who is she?

How is she coming here and talking, saying anything to me?

Do you know who I am?

Well, I'm going to tell you something.

I don't know when you chose that you weren't enough.

I don't know when you decided that you needed to do follow the system in order to be somebody.

But who you were, who you left behind that made you be complicit in the evil that has

been done to people to harm them with vaccines and society being harmed and destroyed and children

being mutilated under your watch?

You have a chance to turn back.

It's not too late.

You can turn back and go to who you left behind because guess what?

That person is good enough.

I am good enough.

I don't have to have a title or sit at a table or be or follow this ladder up to the top

in order to be somebody.

You have a civic duty to serve me.

And so when you see something harming the people of our state, you step in and you do something.

Use your agency, Rosario, as you're new to this, to do something.

Use your voice.

Can you please conclude your remarks?

Thank you.

And Sarah Mattson.

Thank you.

And this one is here.

Don't start my time.

Oh, here we go.

Beautiful.

So good morning supervisors.

I'm Sarah Mattson and Happy New Year.

Do the family reasons.

This is my first time being able to address you this year.

And I just, I'm here to speak about as a resident and in support to protect sailor

bar from motor vehicle access.

And here's a little pamphlet that you can see if you haven't seen it before.

Almost a generation has never seen cars on the sailor bar trails meant for equestrian

use.

And over 5,000 residents already so far have risen up to unite and say no to force cars

by petition.

The Sierra Club, the Audubon Society, the South-South American River, and even the county's disability

advisory commission that advises you on this board has said no to motor vehicles.

And so I can't help but say that there's something fishy and it's not the salmon.

Why is this being forced?

And I do want to put this one on top because I'm usually here talking about the board's

duty to abide by the doctrine of the lesser magistrate and how it is you're writing your

duty to reject unlawful and tyrannical laws that are passed by the state.

But in this situation, you supervisors, you actually have complete authority.

You have complete authority because as you can see the hierarchy of how the county works,

we the residents are at the top of the pyramid.

We elect you to represent us.

What is happening in this situation is that a bureaucratic, non-elected official director

of one of these lower is coming in and forcing us to accept something that is literally not

the wish of the people and the will of the people.

And so at least I'm going to ask my last five seconds.

Let's let this go to vote of the citizens.

Please honor your oath of office and support the residents who elected you.

Thank you so much.

God bless you.

That concludes our public comments for this morning.

All right, very good.

Thank you.

Onto our next item then.

Item number two through 52 are consent matters for this morning.

Do you have one clerk note for item number 11, which is to approve the attached resolution

delegating authority to the district administrator to negotiate and execute a lease between the

Carmichael Recreation and Park District and this Sacramento Fine Arts Center.

It will need a motion for this board acting as the Carmichael Recreation and Park District

to drop this item from the agenda this morning.

Very good.

Supervisor Hume.

Thank you, Chair.

I have a question for county council.

I wish to recuse myself on item 17.

I'm not sure that I've received a campaign contribution above the threshold and I don't

know that I've received it in the appropriate time limitation but out of abundance of caution

I'm just going to recuse.

Do I have to do that physically or can I just note my recusal?

In this instance you can just note your recusal.

No, noted.

Thank you.

All right.

Very good.

So we need a motion to drop.

Second.

Been moved and seconded.

Please vote.

Madam item does pass unanimously.

Okay.

Very good.

Thank you.

All right.

Any other notes, Madam Clerk?

No other notes for me but I would like to read item number 17 in the record if you would.

Please.

Item number 17 is PLMP 2024-007-2 Steamboat Acres Boundary Lot.

Line Adjustment, Board Review for a property located at 1-2414 and 1-248 State Highway

160 at the intersection of SETER Island Road and State Highway 160 in the Delta Community

Applicant Judy Chung.

A Environmental Determination is exempt.

Okay.

Great.

Thank you.

And again for the record it will be noted that Sue Rosaricume is recuse himself on that

item.

Madam Clerk, do we have any members of the public that have signed up to speak on consent

matters?

On consent matters we have one for item number 17.

Okay.

Michael Newhark.

Newhark.

Morning everybody.

My name is Michael Newhark.

I'm representative steamboat acres LLC.

I'm here to make comments about item number 17 which concerns steamboat acres LLC and

steamboat landing bar and grill.

I just want to thank you to the chairman of the board Phil Sernah and the rest of the

board for allowing me to speak.

You should have received the February 26, 2024 planning and environmental review document

at least I'll show you guys.

It is the desire of both parties involved in this lot light adjustment to be approved

by the Sacramento County.

Board of supervisors for the benefit of both parties involved and have and to promote

mainly to having to promote peace and harmony between steamboat landing and bar and grill

and steamboat acres LLC.

I am here to answer any questions you may have concerning this matter and if there are

none.

We thank you for the opportunity to come before you before you end the board and we would

highly appreciate your approval of the slot light adjustment on behalf of steamboat

acres LLC.

Thank you for your time and your consideration.

Thank you Miss Newhark.

Any questions for our speakers?

All right, seeing none.

Thanks again.

Okay, Madam Clerk, no other members of the public send the speed of consent matters.

There I am.

Okay, very good.

Any member of the board wish to pull any item from the consent agenda for discussion or

separate vote.

Second.

Okay, we have a motion and a second for approval of consent before we vote.

Item number 35, I just want to offer thanks to staff.

So if the clerk could please read item 35.

Item number 35 is to approve an appropriation adjustment request in the amount of $4,712,000

for pharmaceutical purchases.

Very good.

Thank you.

Won't go into the details of the item other than to just express my gratitude to our health

director, Mr. Lutz, for answering questions that came up in individual board briefings

about some of the pretty notable increases in various pharmaceuticals that have occurred

over the months and recent years.

I think all of us had raised eyebrows when we saw some of those percentages that would

do appreciate the follow-up.

Okay, we have a motion and a second.

We've heard from members of the public on consent matters.

Please vote.

Chair sir, would you like to take a separate vote for item number 17 to the supervisor

Hume can vote on the remainder of the items for the consent calendar?

I don't think we need to.

I think for clarity's purposes we should, that way he can vote on the remaining items.

Okay.

All right.

So just on item 17, please vote.

In that does pass for with one refusal.

Okay, very good.

And for the balance of consent, please vote.

I would need a separate motion.

There is one.

I'll move the remainder of consent.

I'll second.

And that does pass for unanimous.

Very good.

Thank you.

All right.

Next item, please.

Item number 53 is a presentation of resolution recognizing February as therapeutic recreation

month and celebrating the 50th anniversary of Sacramento County, therapeutic recreation

services.

Thank you.

Good morning to your surname and words of the board.

Ms. Bellis, Director of Regional Parks.

I'm very happy to be here to have this resolution to recognize February as therapeutic

recreation month.

Therapeutic recreation is a very important part of our department, a very small yet mighty

division.

We have two full-time employees, several part-time employees and a large number of volunteers

that support our therapeutic recreation services.

In case you are not aware, therapeutic recreation services helps promote leisure independence

and optimal lifestyle.

It actually brings, I'm in hands as well being and also provides a greater sense of accomplishment

for our participants.

From quick highlights for 2024, we served almost 9,000 participant experiences, offered 220

programs, and had 4,811 volunteer hours.

We have a special Olympics team called the Sacramento County Chargers.

They had 153 athletes trained in a compete in a variety of sports, and we had extended

travel programs.

The programs that we offer through therapeutic recreation services include virtual programming,

special events, sports training, day trips, classes, overnight travel, camps, and outdoor

adventures.

I am happy to welcome two of our therapeutic recreation services staff here today.

If you'd like to come up, I can present this resolution.

And this year, although not 175 years, is a special year for us because it is our 50th anniversary,

which is a lot easier to say, by the way, of our therapeutic recreation services program.

I would like to extend an invitation to all of you to join us on November 21st for

a Gala celebrating so that you can experience the happiness and the warmth that we get every

day from our participants in our therapeutic recreation services.

With that, I will present this resolution to our therapeutic staff.

Thank you.

And I think your staff, the board, are allowing us to make this presentation.

Thank you, Ms. Belis.

And just let me say on behalf of the board that I think we're all big fans of therapeutic

services and our partnership that we've enjoyed over the years through our parks to part

regional parks department.

Some of us will recall some of the fanfare that we used to enjoy years ago.

And Epi Johnson would join us here in Chambers and we were in for a show when Epi and his

family presented big checks and made the board of supervisors do odd things at times, including

me running around Chambers as a clown.

So it wasn't just me, it was also the rest of my colleagues.

But yeah, so certainly have fond memories of that, but offer a terrific cause and I'm

glad that we're at least annually recognizing therapeutic services as I think rightful.

So thank you again.

Thank you.

All right.

Next item please.

I assume we have no speakers on.

We did not have any speakers for that item.

And so our next time item is at 10 a.m.

So if it pleases the board, if we can do or consider the nominations and appointments

for boards and commissions.

Please.

So we have continuing to March 11th, the children's coalition, the county service area for

the sleuthouse Wilton Cosumnes, county service area number 4c delta.

So continuing to March 25th, cemetery advisory commission, the disability advisory commission,

the Elk Grove Cosumnes Cemetery District, Fair Oak Cemetery District and the in-home

supportive services advisory commission.

The local childcare planning and development council, the maternal child and adolescent

health advisory board, continuing to April 8th, developmental disabilities planning and advisory

council, the Sacramento County Behavioral Health Use Advisory Board, the Sacramento County

Commission on the status of women and girls and the veterans advisory commission and the

vignette community planning advisory council.

So that brings us to today's items.

The first item is the adult and aging commission, Sherna.

Please continue to March 25th.

Thank you.

The Antelope Community Planning Advisory Council District 4.

So Supervisor Rodriguez, you have seven seats.

Please nominate Kathleen Stewart Beck.

Okay, and you have six other seats would you like to continue those two a meeting date?

Yes, please.

Till March 25th.

Thank you.

Then we have the County Planning Commission, Supervisor Rodriguez.

You have one seat.

Please appoint Tim Berga.

Okay.

Please wait the process.

Second.

And that passes unanimously.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Advisory Committee, there's four seats, Sherna.

Chiefs are recommending the nomination of Amy Brown and continuing the remainder to March

25th.

Thank you.

The Human Services Coordinating Council, Sherna, there's four seats.

Please continue to April 8th.

To North Island's foothill farms community planning advisory council, Supervisor Desmond,

you have two district nominations.

Please continue to April 8th.

The Public Health Advisory Board, Sherna, there's three community seats.

Please continue to March 25th.

And the Recreation and Park Commission, Supervisor Rodriguez, you have one seat.

Please nominate David Benavento.

Thank you.

In the real-in to Alberta Community Planning Advisory Council, Supervisor Rodriguez,

you have four seats for district four nominations.

I'm sorry.

Can you repeat which one that was?

This is the real-in to Alberta Community Planning Advisory Council.

Please continue to March 11th.

Thank you.

And the Sacramento County Youth Commission, Supervisor Kennedy, you have one seat.

And Supervisor Rodriguez, you have one seat.

Please continue to March 11th.

In the Sacramento Environmental Commission, Sherna, there is one seat available.

Please continue to March 11th.

In the Sacramento Housing and Redevelopment Commission, Supervisor Hume, you have one district

five nomination.

Please continue to April 8th.

Thank you.

In the Sheriff Community Review Commission, Supervisor Hume, you have one district five nomination.

Thank you.

And that concludes our boards and commissions nominations.

We could also move to on ranks if you'd like.

Sure.

Beautiful.

So item number 63 is Board of Supervisors 2025 appointments from on ranks to the Greater

Sacramento Economic Council.

The clerk's office is looking today to make an appointment and a change due to a by-law

amendment change to the G-Sec.

And so currently seating is the public sector member listed as County Executive David Villanova

and then has the appointment member as full-surn in the appointment alternate as Rosario Rodriguez,

a Supervisor Rodriguez.

And so the by-law amendment change lists a director and an alternate.

And so we are looking for a nomination and appointment to that today.

And so the by-law state that we shall have one single voting representative to serve as

director.

And so the director under that paragraph shall be the highest ranking non-elected official

with the government entity.

Okay, so I would nominate David Villanova.

Okay.

And then additionally for that, then the highest ranking non-elected official shall be permitted

to delegate his or her position as the director to the highest ranking elected official with

the government entity.

Intertain, nominate.

Well, I have someone point of finger at me.

So I'm happy to serve in that capacity if it's the world aboard.

So I just need a motion and a second for that.

So the question move to nominate Chair Surnheim as the delegate.

Second.

Okay, Mr. Chair.

Yes, Chair Surnheim.

I had a question.

Well, I guess we're getting to vote here.

But at a question, are we the only jurisdiction that does it this way on G-Sec?

Are the other cities within the county appoint the, I guess, the either city manager, I guess

would be the city manager to represent them in municipality?

So I think this came up because over the last year, at least when Supervisor Kennedy was

the Chair, I had some questions about the communication coming out of G-Sec and why it wasn't

including the Chair as you guys, the member being appointed.

As we took a deeper dive into G-Sec's bylaws, they presented that information to us.

So that's one of the reasons why we're making this change because we had clarification on

the bylaws.

Some cities and counties within the G-Sec area appoint their city manager, their county

executive.

For example, I know Rancho Cordova, it's elected council member Sanders is their representative.

So no, it's both opportunities for either representation.

I don't know that there's any difference in the representation as far as who goes, I

go to the meetings and I know the district representative of certain activities that G-Sec

is doing or open to all of you if they have a certain type of study mission that they

go to.

So I think it's to answer your question, I think it's all over the board.

Okay.

I know.

Sorry for that long answer, too.

It just seems unnecessary.

It seems like it to me, it should just be the Chair.

If the Chair wants to delegate someone in the Chair's absence, that would make more

sense versus being the county executive, you delegate to the Chair.

Okay.

I agree.

Record that vote does pass unanimous.

Okay, very good.

Am I?

Is that it?

That's it.

Okay.

So I asked the question weeks ago and please, Mr. Villanueva or Madam Clerk, please jump

in and correct me if I have this wrong or my colleagues if I think otherwise.

But I believe we have confirmed that we can in fact have nominated and then if again,

the will of the board selected alternate to serve on the RT board of directors should

and that alternate would have the opportunity to sit at a meeting should one of the three

members of the board be absent.

Is that the understanding of the CEO and the clerk's office?

That's my understanding.

I did talk to the executive director of RT and they did say they do allow alternates.

They have allowed alternates and I believe it was, I'm sorry, this was several weeks ago

that I looked at it, but there's one organization that had an extra seat put on and they kept

their alternate.

So we can appoint an alternate.

I just don't remember if the procedure required RT to allow the alternate or for us to assign

an alternate.

Okay.

So let's do this for the next meeting for our next convening.

Let's get clarity on just the sequencing what has to happen first whether it's an action

has to be taken by the RT board or V. It can be handled administratively or C. We have

to act first and then them.

So let's get that clarity.

I'm sure the clerk will note this interest.

For the record today, I would like to, I know we're not going to nominate, but I would

like to just put forth the fact that I believe supervisor Rodriguez has already expressed

an interest in the alternate seat in fact serving on RT period.

And I know she's an avid light rail writer all the way from Fulcimate Times.

So I would just kind of plant that in the minds of my colleagues for consideration when we

do come back and if we do take formal action as to selecting an alternate.

Yes.

That would be great.

Thank you.

Perfect.

I don't want to thank you.

Okay.

I'm going to our next item.

Item number 54 is to approve the issuance by the Sacramento County Water Financing Authority

of Series 2025 revenue bonds.

In a principal amount amount not to exceed $80 million and approving the forms of and

authorizing the execution and delivery of the related documents and directing and

authorizing certain other actions and connection they are with.

Thank you.

And there is a presentation today.

Just a moment.

My computer is not acting.

It's not responding.

There we go.

Great.

Good morning, Chair Surnon.

Supervisors today.

I'm Colin Betis, the county debt officer.

Today I'll be presenting on the recommendation to approve the issuance of the Series 2025

Water Revenue Bonds.

The 2025 Water Revenue Bonds will fund the completion of the Arden Service Area distribution,

re-alignment and meter installation program and two treatment plant recoding projects.

The recommended method of sale is a competitive sale and as it is the first to be recommended

within the county I'll be providing the reasoning behind that recommendation.

The benefits and considerations that are looked at when making a choice between a competitive

sale and a negotiated sale as is consistent with the counties and the agencies adopted

debt policies.

A competitive sale will bring maximum price transparency, often pricing lower than that

of a negotiated sale.

It does not require an underwriter RFP process and has lower issuance costs.

Consideration for a competitive sale are a lack of underwriting support in a volatile

market.

Less structuring a flexibility than a negotiated sale and it does not have a formal marketing

period.

Alternately, a negotiated sale benefits include banks that provide underwriting capability

in volatile markets, a marketing process that can assist in generating investor demand.

In some instances, a strategic use of a syndicate can reach a variety of buyers and there's

an ability to reprice to achieve lower spreads and an ability to customize the couponing

and other structuring elements of the pricing.

Considerations for a negotiated sale are that pricing levels are often higher than competitive

sales.

The RFP process for the underwriting team adds time and the financing schedule as it carries

a higher cost of issuance.

The method of sale recommended is the competitive sale primarily for the following three reasons.

The size of these bonds lends itself to a competitive sale.

A bond size of about 500 million would not be recommended for a competitive sale.

The water agency has been in the market a couple of times within the last six years with

the 2019 issuance and again in 2022, making it already known in the market.

And finally, competitive sales are commonplace in the finance industry for high quality water

revenue bonds as water systems are viewed as essential systems.

The county's water agency bonds are rated double A minus as affirmed by S&P this morning,

placing it in the high quality bond classification.

Additionally, the county has access to some very recent comparable data from a water credit

that issued bonds competitively sold this morning.

The deal received 14 bids with favorable results and the term size and final maturity are

very similar to the deal that we are planning to structure.

In most instances, county staff would recommend a negotiated sale due to the size of the deal,

the frequency in which the county or the credit enters the market.

And oftentimes, there is a greater story to tell with the credit and there is a desire

to have a more robust marketing period.

On this final slide, I'll go through the estimated numbers.

We are looking at a par amount of approximately 63.7 million for a project deposit of 61 million,

a capitalized interest fund that will fund debt service through December 2026 and cost

to deliver the bonds.

These bonds will be fixed rate tax exempt bonds with a final maturity of little over 30 years

from now.

The source of repayment will be the water system revenues and it is not a pledge of the

general fund.

And the current rates that have been approved will be sufficient to maintain the required

debt service coverage going forward in the near term.

The key to all of this is to say that even though these bonds will be competitively sold,

the bonds will be sold as a very standard structure.

For timing consideration, should the board approve this item today, we will be posting the

preliminary official statement tomorrow with an expected pricing date of March 4th and

a closing date estimated to be March 19th.

This concludes my presentation.

With me today are Brandon from Oric, the county and water agencies bond council, Camelia

from the Sacramento County Water Agency and Fred Dilly of the PFM, the county and agency

as municipal advisers.

We are all available to answer any questions you may have and finally I ask the board

considered staffs recommended actions.

Thank you.

Great.

Thank you very much.

Any questions, staff?

Who advised you to?

Thank you, Chair.

Colin, I don't need to spend a lot of time on this but I nerd out on this kind of stuff.

Just curious.

If going to the competitive sale process are there factors in the current market that

chose, that compelled us to want to go that way, is this, we're dipping our toe in

the pool and this will be the new way we conduct business.

I think that's an important issue.

We'll look at it on an issuance by issuance basis.

The market right now is pretty strong and favorable but really it's the credit that we're

issuing.

It's a water revenue bond.

The structure is very standard.

There's not a real deep story to tell behind the bonds and it's got a good credit rating

and the size is very important as well.

Anything around that 500 million mark, you wouldn't be wanting to go out and have a competitive

sale.

So this deal lends itself well to that competitive sale process.

Okay.

Well, I hope it goes well.

Thank you.

Any other questions of staff?

All right.

Thank you.

Madam Clerk, do we have any members of the public scientist to speak on this matter?

We do not.

Okay.

Entertainment motion at this point.

I'll move item number 54.

It's been moved and segregated.

Please vote.

And that item does pass unanimously.

Very good.

Thank you.

Next item, please.

Item number 55 is fiscal year 2024 25 quarter to Sacramento County Welcome Homes

presentation.

You are acting as the welcome home board of directors.

Good morning, Chair Surnay and supervisors.

I'm happy to be able to present the quarter to information for our Welcome Homes Board

of Directors meeting.

I'd like to first start by thanking each of you for your continued support as we navigate

this endeavor, which has never been done before in our county.

We appreciate your continued partnership and look forward to your continued help in

helping us to improve our services as we continue to support youth in our community.

I also want to take a moment and thank our DCFAS team.

There are several members, many of whom are here today, who do incredible work around

the clock to ensure that our Welcome Homes are operating efficiently.

So I did just want to take a moment and give them acknowledgement.

Less before you continue.

Just for the public's benefit, maybe you can introduce yourself in your title.

Absolutely, yes.

I'm Melissa Lloyd and I'm the deputy director I oversee child protective services under

the Department of Child Family and Adult Services.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

So for today on our agenda, we have several items and I'd first like to start with some

really great news.

We have added an administrator, a second administrator through repurposing department resources.

We were able to do this.

She is here today with us, Alicia West-Clewitz and she works under the supervision of our

initial administrator, Kathy Johnson.

Alicia, the reason that we added the additional administrator and again, we will be seeking your

approval for that is that Alicia will her role.

She will have more presence in the homes directly and we'll be able to assist supervisors and

staff overseeing the day-to-day programming and providing training and modeling to our

staff.

We'll go next to our operating budget and fiscal statement.

This is a snapshot up on the board.

This is a snapshot of our fiscal year 2425 budget for all three welcome homes.

I'm happy to share that in November of 2024, we reduced the number of welcome homes, Sacramento

County licensed welcome homes down to two.

This shows the budget quarter one actuals, quarter two actuals and the remaining budget

for the fiscal year.

You'll notice that over half of the budget is allocated to staffing.

The next largest budget category is contracted services which make up about a fifth of the

budget.

Our security services contract with the Sheriff Department makes up the bulk of this line

item along with training for staff and youth recreational activities and mentorship

programming.

Finally, our operating expenses and overhead make up the final amounts respectively.

These include facilities cost, supplies needed to feed and care for the youth, indirect

costs needed to operate in other minor miscellaneous expenses.

All expenses are reflected as there are sometimes delays in receiving the invoices timely.

Moving on to staff training and safety.

Our training plan this slide outlines the quarter two trainings that took place for our

staff.

So training plan was revised to align with the requirements of community care licensing

and was submitted to community care licensing January of this year.

Initial key areas of training will continue to include shadowing opportunities for staff

to understand programming, assessment and coaching of staff for understanding of program

goals and all areas of support.

They may need to help further develop their skills.

Continuing with staff training and safety, this slide outlines our future trainings.

We are training to policy prior to the policies being developed.

We did do training due to the need as we were creating the supports and services within

the welcome homes.

I do want to share that we do have a plan for all makeup trainings for staff who may not

have been able to make their scheduled training.

We'll move forward to our demographic data.

This slide demonstrates that between October 1 and December 31, there were 85 unduplicated

youth served in the welcome homes.

Of these, you'll see that 58% identified as female, 41% male, 1% transgender.

Notably 61% were children or youth of color, black, Hispanic, American Indian.

14 of the 85 or 16% were probation involved on an informal status and the average age

of youth during quarter two was 13.

We also see that on average, the daily census was 11 youth across all welcome homes and

the average length of stay was six days.

At the last Board of Directors meeting, the initial one, there had been an ask for a

comparison of demographic data between our welcome homes and that of our partners,

progress ranch and children's receiving home.

This is point in time data that you see on this slide.

You will see that progress ranch and the receiving home both have considerably smaller

populations over quarter two than the Sacramento welcome homes.

Sacramento again had three homes for half of the quarter.

Progress ranch had one home with six beds and the children's receiving home had one

cottage with three beds which began October 30th of 2024.

Moving forward with the demographic comparison, this slide shows a comparison between genders,

between the youth we serve at the Sacramento welcome homes and those of our partners,

progress ranch and the children's receiving home.

Progress ranch has primarily served girls and children's receiving home has been focused

on boys.

I am happy to share also that today the children's receiving home opened a second cottage and

will be taking, they'll have capacity for three more beds.

That may still focus on the male gender.

For the discharge data, this slide shows where our youth discharged.

Out of the 103 discharges and a reminder that some of these are duplicate kids, the most

common discharge location was unauthorized absence.

So the way that we have to report for licensing purposes is that when a youth goes on an

unauthorized absence, it still is considered a discharge.

And this is basically the youth leaving the welcome home without authorization.

Roughly one in five youth or 19% left was discharged to one of our other partner locations,

progress ranch or the children's receiving home.

And 19 youth, which equates to 19% exited to a family member.

And that included parents, relatives or non-related extended family members.

Forty-seven percent of our youth were discharged to home based settings.

And 16% returned to a parent or guardian, 14% went to a foster family agency.

2% went to a relative, 13% to a county resource parent.

And 2% were discharged to congregate care with therapeutic supports.

3% discharge to youth detention facility.

Again, due to a request of this board during quarter one, we did create a slide for you to

show the data on the discharge comparison.

And again, the numbers are smaller because the population of our partners capacity is smaller than what we've had.

Excuse me, Melissa.

Yes.

We have a comment or question from supervisor Desmond.

Yes.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Melissa.

So I understand during this reporting period, we've been kind of a state of flux going from more welcome homes and

into entering into additional contracts.

And as you mentioned now, the children receiving home was open the additional cottage.

Will at some point, when those things kind of stabilize, will you in future reporting periods also compare our discharge results in the current reporting period with prior reporting periods?

Because I don't think, I don't see that in here.

You have the incident reports comparison between, I think, reporting periods.

But do you have the discharge data comparison between reporting periods?

So if I'm understanding you correctly, you would like us to show between quarters what those discharges like.

Correct.

So we can see your progress, right?

Sure.

We can absolutely do that.

I think that would be helpful.

Thank you.

Yeah, no problem.

Good suggestion.

Thank you.

Okay.

Now we will move on to the incident report data.

So this slide depicts the incidents that we reported to state community care licensing over the past quarter.

October 24, 3 December of 2024.

You'll notice there were a total of 192 total incident reports.

And that 134 of those were for the unauthorized absences.

So those are, as a reminder, when kids go on an unauthorized absence, that does fall under an incident report that we do have to share information on with community care licensing.

The remaining 58 incident reports were due to contraband, hospitalizations, injuries, substance use, and medical emergencies.

You'll see this data folded into the incident types listed below.

It should be noted that some events are categorized in multiple incident categories.

So incidents should not be interpreted as solely separate events necessarily.

In this period, the majority of the incidents occurred at our girls location.

The second location, since we have closed that third location, saw the second largest number of incidents.

While we did have our third location, which again has since closed, we had the fewest incidents at that location.

So we're unfortunately three incidents, this quarter that resulted in injury to staff.

The incidents included one youth hitting a supervisor in the face, a youth hitting a staff in the back as she climbed through a window with a puppy and a youth hit a staff in the jaw when staff was attempting to help calm the youth down.

Well, is it before you leave the slide? Are we tracking any incidents involving suicide ideation?

So in terms of those will fall under typically what will happen with those supervisor's CERNA as they will result in a hospitalization.

And so they are tracked and then those incident reports that hold the qualitative data.

All of that information goes to community care licensing.

Okay, so I mean, that I would imagine that has to be a pretty acute case in terms of how how it manifests itself if you're going to hospitalize someone.

I assume it's on a on a 72 hour hold.

They they will be put and that's where our supports the mental health supports that we have through contracted providers really help we as a reminder from the information presented at quarter one.

We have kids immediately connected referred to mental health services.

Despite some of those services, we will have some kids who are having a lot of challenges with their mental health.

And so it's case by case circumstance.

And so we will have supports and services from different contracted providers, who the kids are involved with.

We typically will have very routine for us to work.

We do a lot of work hand in hand with Tim Lutz's team, Department of Health Services.

So we also have a CPS mental health liaison that helps us with those circumstances.

So at the point that something gets to a chronic circumstance where we will need to call for assistance.

Kids if they are taken to the hospital, they are typically put on a hold.

And then from there we work with our area hospitals to determine a proper discharge plan for the kids.

So we also have been doing my team along with Mr. Lutz's team has been doing a lot of teaming, if you will, with area hospitals in regard to protocols at hospitals and working with them again on proper discharge plans and getting mental health services to those kids.

So when you keep saying hospitals, so I'm assuming it's not a Kaiser, it's not a, I'm assuming it's a Puff or it's a Smith.

I mean, some kids will go to the mental health treatment center, but there are times when kids will be taken to the emergency department of area hospitals.

And I'll just add if you recall one of our behavioral health applications, we've submitted to the state for the BHCIP is for youth related services.

So we will have a youth related Puff that we're putting at the formerly the wet center as well.

But we do contract with youth facilities for psychiatric care as needed.

Okay, and are the youth that unfortunately present this way?

How are they transported?

Are they, is a first responder notified?

I mean, this introduces all kinds of other challenges we currently have at the moment relative to law enforcement, but on the fire life safety side.

It depends on the acuity of the youth and what's needed at the time.

Sometimes staff can transport and sometimes we do rely on first responders.

So I understand your line of questioning.

We have been in touch with the sheriff's department who hasn't changed their protocol around transports for youth at this point and we will continue to monitor that.

Okay.

If we're going to have a future check ins relative to this data, I'd like to kind of have us track maybe, or at least it sounds like you already are tracking,

but maybe call it out separately.

Just I think it's good that we understand whether or not there's any kind of unfortunate trends or I think everyone's very sensitive at the moment to how the county generally responds to reports of individuals, whether they're youth or adult, that are presenting as a threat to themselves or others.

Absolutely. We'll track that.

Thank you.

Okay.

And on this slide that's up now, this was the incident report comparison that was asked for.

And so you will see that we've noted here the data from both progress ranch and the children's receiving home for quarter two unauthorized absences were also the most common incidents for progress ranch.

And for the receiving home, it was both unauthorized absences and medical or behavioral health needs.

But again, a very small population.

Excuse me. Supervisor Desmond.

Sorry, sorry. I gave you the right to move on.

It's fine.

But no, and this is great.

I guess my same comment applies here, you know, prospectively if we can compare it by reporting periods, it would be great.

And it also looks like the reporting categories may not all be consistent.

So you're trying to do that.

We address that. We have addressed that with our partners.

And so this was the way that they are tracking information.

They too, being licensed facilities, have to send information into licensing.

And so one of the things my team and I talked about was working with our partners and our internal team to make sure that the items are all the same.

So we can do comparisons.

Apples to apples, yes.

Thank you.

Okay. And next we have the community care licensing reporting data.

This slide depicts our other interactions with community care licensing.

And it compares. This one does compare quarter one to quarter two.

We have our four facility evaluation reports. This past quarter we were cited for nine items to correct across the three homes.

And many things were duplicated across the houses.

Items we were asked to correct included being over capacity.

Incident reports being sent in timely to licensing training completion.

And we had a smoke detector where the wires were cut and needed to be replaced.

There were five complaint investigations that were brought to our attention of these.

One was unsubstantiated.

Two were substantiated and two are still pending a conclusion.

With the two that were substantiated, I did want to note those were circumstances where we did have children under six in the home.

The licensure of temper of welcome homes does not at this time per the state include the opportunity to serve kids under six years old.

We have had some parenting minors who have been in our care.

And we have been transparent with community care licensing that we will take their minor child in with them to help keep them together and serve them wholly.

This next slide depicts where we were at the end of quarter two with our policies and procedures.

We have eight policies that have been identified and have been written.

They're at various stages of approval process for policies.

We do work with our labor partners to move toward these policies being finalized.

And that's the work in progress ongoing to complete our policies.

Next, I'll talk a little bit about our placement capacity expansion.

I'm very proud of this work and I do need to give acknowledgement to Department of Health Services for their extraordinary support.

We have worked with DCFAS as we have worked together.

Additionally, we have multiple community partners that have come forward.

We even have partners that were out of county who because of the work that we're doing in Sacramento County have been interested in attracted to coming and working with us on our local capacity expansion efforts.

We don't believe that deserves acknowledgement to both our internal county partners at DHS as well as our community partners.

The overall plan is to increase local placement capacity for kids who have a higher acuity of need.

We have a little bit of a refreshing respectfully to Supervisor Rodriguez.

We have historically had to have a lot of our youth go out of state because we didn't have that local capacity.

And so these efforts that we have been working on the past year plus have really helped us to create more local capacity, which includes emergency enhanced intensive services foster care homes.

We can have kids go up to 60 days enhanced intensive services foster care homes where there's a placement of for nine to 12 months.

The work that I've already highlighted with our contracted providers for our contracted welcome homes through progress ranch and the receiving home.

We have a third partner coming on board April one who will take over the girls home as a contracted provider.

So we plan to be down to one welcome home Sacramento County welcome home at that time.

And then we also have partners one local partner and one who came from the Bay Area to do contracted short term residential therapeutic supports to increase our capacity there.

This slide gives where we were it shows the data of where we were at the end of December of 24 and at that time you'll see our total number of active capacity was 46 that's 46 additional beds in our county that have been created through this effort.

I'm happy to share that as of today we've increased by one more so we're at 47.

And then you'll see what our goals are so we literally at this time have 24 more beds among these variety of these partners 25 more beds that we should have and so quarter three should produce some happy data in this area.

So I do that's the end of our presentation I do want to share a couple of points that I think the board will appreciate.

We have continued to prioritize relative engagement and relative placement last year from January 24 to January of this year.

We've increased our relative placements by nearly 14% additionally the number of kids in foster care continues to decrease from January of 2024 to January of 2025 we decrease the number of kids in foster care by almost 26%.

And I'm available as is our team for any question you may have.

Great thank you Melissa as usual very informative and responsive to past increase and I'm glad you ended with some very positive information and I know you understand we're going to continue to do what you do best and really focus on making sure that we appropriately

grab a with the challenges around placement certainly but I'm really really encouraged to hear especially the family placement numbers going in the right direction.

All right before we get to comments and questions from board members we have all four of my colleagues in the queue I just want to ask the clerk do we have anyone's time to speak on this matter we do not.

All right very good we will start with supervisory.

Thank you chair with everyone being keyed and I'll keep the brief but on slide seven you have the demographic you don't have to go back to it you have the demographic data that lists the number of kids the youth unduplicated duplicated total discharges and then on the remainder of the charts and in which you just mentioned relative the decrease year over year.

And then on the numerical values and summer percentages is there do you have anywhere that I missed where we talk about the total number of children served.

Well I had shared in the very beginning supervisor heum the total number of youth serve I want to say it was 184 but I will look oh we.

There were 85 unduplicated youth served in the welcome homes during quarter to okay and so that's during quarter to how would one extrapolate how many youth get served in a year or or some way that we're trying I'm trying to figure out how I would break down.

How many total children.

I mean I.

I understand because the unduplicated youth and the discharges number don't match up there are some who got discharged in quarter to but started to be served in quarter one or even before right and so is there a way to kind of get that we can we can put that together and I'd be happy to we will put that together and send forth and happy to send it to all of you it is a bit complicated just in terms of understanding it it's complicated.

For us as well because we will have that's why we talk about duplicated versus unduplicated and we do have kids who will discharge successfully and then a couple months later they're back in our welcome homes so we will determine a good concise way to put that together and send it forward so that we give kind of that year long snapshot that would be fantastic and would that apply both to our welcome homes as well as our contract providers we can do both thank you very much.

I appreciate it and then I just want to say just kind of as an aside I really appreciate the work that you and your staff do in this area it's not an easy task that we're charged with I don't think it's optional in any way shape or form and so it's really meeting needs of pretty significant but you know hopefully small demographic yeah thank you.

Thank you survivor him to survivor Kenny.

Thank you chair unless I don't have any questions necessarily just want to also echo what soo resident humans as far as thanking you and commanding your staff we've come a long way in a short period of time I actually had an opportunity to visit the two welcome homes and found them accommodating clean efficient you know professionally staffed very impressive and you're the winner.

And you're to be committed as well as your staff thank you thank you very much thank you supervisor Kennedy supervisor Rodriguez most I want to thank you for you and your team for the work that you do because anytime you we see children in compromised positions like this I think it's really hard not so much on our regular day to day jobs but also the issues that we see and at that leave an impression on our hearts.

I also want to say that I think looking at the data year to date it would be very beneficial and also can you elaborate on the 26% reduction of children is there something that has led to those positive numbers.

Yes actually we I believe we are doing a better job every day at engaging with families and really determining what is a true safety issue that requires separating family and with that we are very fortunate in our county to have supports up front in our emergency response division to be able to still serve families.

We have a lot of support for families who may need some case management oversight so we have that program of informal supervision but overall in our county I think what is working well is doing further engagement with families really bringing them to the table to help them share what is occurring with them and really doing better and better work around is an issue that comes forward for neglect something that can be

really focusing on where we see bias in the work that we do so there's a tremendous amount of work going on across our division to address this and be accountable to families and children in our community around really first and foremost determining what they really need.

And determining if there's a true safety issue there are circumstances that include physical and sexual abuse that are going to bring kids into the system but overall really doing better work and then while we are working with families really kind of our commitment is leaving families better than when we first started working with them even if there's a circumstance where there was no harm being done how do we help connect families to community how do we help them understand what's directly in their community.

And if there's not a service in their community how do we help provide them some education support and a little bit of hand holding if needed to get them to a service that may help them now but may also help them in the future and really allowing for those that they identify as family to be brought in to the discussions around how we further help them again in the moment and then also for their future.

Thank you.

Before we get to supervisor Desmond if I could please I just wanted to take an opportunity to follow up on that a bit given your response Melissa.

When we have the opportunity to place a youth back with family is there an expected or almost automatic involvement of our family resource centers.

So in other words given where you know what the address might be of where the family lives identifying which of the nine family resource centers is closest and do we do we have supports that are actually set up there that they could take advantage of in terms of parenting classes what what have you I mean you might have a youth for instance that you know goes to live with aunt Uncle not you know mom dad.

Right and maybe the aunt and uncle don't have children and so you know all of a sudden they are the custodians and of you know the family custodians of that youth seems to me that we have a tremendous amount of resources at our FRCs so just like to hear your thoughts on that.

Yes absolutely and that really goes into the the comment I made about really helping families and it's not just that nuclear family that we may be working with but who their family is comprised of to understand the resources in their.

Residents area of residence and so there are times with across the spectrum a lot of times like historically the resource family resource centers were really looked at like for up front trying to mitigate child welfare involvement and there's tremendous service that our families resource centers do in that area but additionally what we've been pushing in our division is that everyone can benefit from a family resource center even if they're.

People who are adopting people who are moving into a guardianship with children from their family so family resource centers at every kind of every program within our division our staff are helping to connect family to those some of our families are very familiar just depending on where they live but we do share with them that it's not just family resource centers have that component of home visiting but they have so much more as I believe all of you know so we're.

Really getting families connected to those resource centers but also getting them connected to other community supports depending on what their needs are you know just just add to I think we're all very much aware and proud of the fact that at our frc's they are not just doing the great work you just.

Identified but they're doing it in a culturally competent manner so I think again I'm just you know not a big fan of what goes on at our frc's and I'm glad to understand a little bit better with your response that we are in fact taking advantage of all the services offered there to revise your.

Thank you Mr. Chair and I'll just I'll also echo the the thanks from my my colleagues up here I mean it's been it's a great discussion and I think it's a reflection that we all understand this is among those vulnerable population we serve and one of the most important things that we do as a county and it's it's great to hear the success or the improvements that we're making both in family placements and overall and that's just absolutely wonderful and who's that new contractor going to be when we convert from a county welcome home to a contracted one.

Oh the next one on board is foster hope foster hope so we progress ranch and foster hope and the children receiving and the rest of you have three contractors okay and I also want to throw a shout out there again team list of the guy I like to do you've you've been extremely responsive to issues that do come up with constituents or residents who live nearby and resolving those and we've been able to do that I'm sure that's going to continue with the contract operators as well so just thank you to you and Shelby you're inheriting a really great.

Program and wonderful staff and thank you for everything you do you're welcome thank you very much.

All right very good again mental park no one's time to speak on this matter we do need to adopt a resolution so I'd entertain a motion at this time.

Cheryl moves or second okay it's been moved second please vote.

Thank you very good thank you next item please item number 56 is the Sacramento County local age and disability friendly action plan.

Thank you.

Good morning chair sir and members of the board I want to thank you for allowing us to present for your approval our Sacramento County local age and disability friendly action plan I am Melissa Jacobs I am your deputy director for senior and adult services for

the Department of Child Family and Adult Services and so you'll hear for me briefly as well as our contracted consultant might king.

In 2023 Sacramento County community was comprised of about 441 thousand individuals who are living with a disability and or were over the age of 60 which was about 28% of our community and by 2030 we are anticipating that about 30% of our community will be comprised of

individuals living with a disability and or are over the age of 60 and future population projections are showing us that our older adult population is continuing to grow and that will soon outpace our younger the number of younger people in our community.

California has been preparing for this change in population with its implementation of the California master plan for aging since 2021 when that was released.

The Sacramento County has also been preparing for this demographic change is evidenced by this body or our board your support in approving our ability to opt in to being part of AARP's network of age and disability friendly communities in fall of 2019 November 2019.

Since that time we've navigated an unprecedented global pandemic and have emerged with renewed enthusiasm and excitement for this project and the team at senior and adult services has worked tirelessly over the last few years to bring us to this point today and with that I want to go off script just a second and thank and acknowledge three retirees folks who since this was on your agenda have retired or announced their retirement and were integral in the last year.

We're in a role in this work being initiated and so our former director Michelle Kay has you may know her.

Ruth McKenzie was the senior and adult services division manager when this and this work started and then Heidi Richardson was the program planner who initiated and led this work she is here today and without her commitment and passion for serving older adults and individuals with disabilities that were in the last year.

And so I want to thank them and acknowledge them publicly thank you.

In alignment with the state's master plan for aging the California Department of aging offered local grants to local communities for us to be able to create our own local plans and in all of her wisdom Heidi applied for one of those grants and Sacramento County was awarded 200,000 dollars to help us build our local plan and it the timing of it worked.

Seamlessly and was in alignment with our age and disability friendly work that we are already doing.

So we want to work with your approval to procure a contractor and executed that contract with per street consulting at the end of 2023 and in 2024 an additional 13 community listening sessions occurred for a total of 26 and advisory committee was formed and met regularly and we heard from over 500.

And they along with the advisory shaped and created the plan presented to you today.

So our project lead Mike King will be sharing with you a high level synopsis of the recommendations that we intend to work on over the next couple of years and in 2027 we will begin that five year cycle of listening and review and assessment of our community needs to contribute to continue to build upon the work.

Of supporting older adults and individuals with disabilities to live in our community and to thrive and to continue to be contributing members for Sacramento County's future.

So as part of that planning process, per street consulting initiated a celebration event that will take place March 17 at the Sacramento State Ballroom to acknowledge the achievements and the work done so far.

I think all of you it's in partnership with the gerontology department at the college.

I think all of you received a save the date or an invitation we'd love to see you there to celebrate this work in our community.

And with that I will pass it over to Mike.

Thank you Melissa and good morning chair Surnon and fellow board members. Thank you for having me today.

As Melissa mentioned, my name is Mike King. I'm a project manager with per street consulting and it's my pleasure to present the local aging and disability friendly action plan to you today.

The local aging and disability friendly action plan is a five year strategy document for intentionally and systematically making communities across Sacramento County more livable for older adults, people with disabilities and their caregivers.

The plan for fills Sacramento County's requirements for membership in ARP's network of age friendly communities and for its grant from the California Department of Aging.

Strategically the plan aligns with the California master plan for Aging's five bold goals, which were on a previous slide.

So the county is positioned to receive funding and collaborate with state initiatives moving forward.

We are proud that the plan is community driven and responsive to what we heard is important to a diversity of residents across the county.

While affordable housing and access to affordable transportation and health care are core priorities for your communities, this plan also focuses on strengthening the existing age and disability services system in Sacramento County by addressing another core priority, which is communications and information.

Through our engagement, we learn that too many older adults and people with disabilities simply do not know about the existing services available to them.

And so this plan proposes to remedy that.

We propose to implement a county wide age friendly and accessibility awareness and celebration campaign that promotes the aging and disability resource connection or ADRC as the no wrong door system navigator.

The aging and disability resource connection of Sacramento County opened its doors in July 2024 and is operated by the agency on aging area for with whom the county has a joint partnership agreement.

The ADRC is a free, accessible and centralized resource for anyone seeking information guidance or assistance accessing long term care services and supports.

We want to strengthen the age and disability services system by driving more traffic to the ADRC.

Next, I want to highlight that creating livable communities for older adults and people with disabilities must also address the biases of ageism and ableism that exist in public spaces.

The plan proposes to start with the business community by implementing an age and disability friendly business program that helps businesses and organizations to implement hiring policies and practices that support disabled and older workers to adapt their customer service strategies and consider how to offer discounts to older adults and people with disabilities and to also help them plan for accessibility improvements, whether that's online or to physical storefronts.

The plan complements the ADRC as the no wrong door system navigator by proposing to implement a multicultural multilingual, multi-ability and multi-agency better together sack outreach and engagement program that ensures resources and information are also accessible to non-English speakers, people with disabilities and other isolated populations.

The ADRC awareness campaign and this better together sack outreach program come together as part of a series of branded interactive and accessible age and disability friendly Sacramento County community events across the county.

These events would be designed to build awareness about new age and disability friendly efforts and resources to build trust with and empower marginalized and isolated community members to foster social participation among these populations to collaboratively

generate solutions as we did previously through the many listening sessions that we had across the county and then also to communicate and evaluate progress on the action plan as well as the county's ADA transition plan and ADRC goals.

The plan also addresses a myriad of transportation needs identified by empowering the Department of Child Family and Adult Services to identify and collaborate with relevant existing agencies, advisory committees and task forces involved in implementing transportation, active mobility and way finding projects to ensure stakeholder voices are consistently represented and greater levels of accessibility and affordability are achieved in our transportation system.

And this is especially in the more rural areas of Sacramento County where the transportation needs are the greatest.

The plan also proposes a solution to ease the cost of caregiving for many households and to help keep older adults and people with disabilities in their chosen homes for as long as possible.

By implementing a countywide village program that connects volunteers with older adults and people with disabilities in need of assistance, we can help fill the gaps in existing formal and informal caregiving systems and resources.

We know also that the city of Sacramento is simultaneously exploring their own village program so we should work collaboratively with them to address caregiving needs across the county.

And then finally the plan proposes to address a myriad of housing and health care needs by giving the Department of Child Family and Adult Services the flexibility to build partnership partnerships and help scale effective emergent solutions to housing affordability and accessibility as well as the cost of long term care.

Of course there is lots more detail about each of these proposals recommendations and the needs we heard from residents and service providers throughout this planning process in the action plan itself.

I hope this was a useful summary and at this time welcome your questions and any comments that the board may have. Thank you.

Thank you for the presentation. Any questions from my colleagues don't see any again. Thank you appreciate it.

Man clerk do have anyone sign up to speak.

We do we have several members of the public that are signed up to speak for this item.

Oh goodness.

Thank you.

The first is Don Angelo.

Good morning chair and supervisors. My name is Don Angelo and I serve as a Sacramento regional director for AARP.

I am here on behalf of the more than 139,000 AARP members in Sacramento County to express our support for the local aging and disability friendly action plan.

AARP is a nonprofit nonpartisan organization dedicated to empowering people to choose how they live as they age.

We are also used to being able to help people to get their community as well as to help people to develop their community.

We are also used to promoting the creation of the community and we are strongly committed to helping build age friendly communities across California and our nation.

We know the more connected and engage people are with their community. The more likely they are to age successfully and remain living in their homes as the vast majority wish to do.

The more they are able to provide social support and support for the group of other people outside public officials, community leaders and residents across the state, and here in Sacramento County to plan for an act that will improve the lives of older adults and people of all ages and abilities.

more than 100 California cities and counties have enrolled in AARP's age-friendly states

and communities representing nearly two-thirds or over 28 million of its population.

Enrolling in the network provides municipalities with the framework to address critical issues

like affordable housing, transportation mobility, and reducing social isolation.

And as you heard, California's population is aging.

By 20-30, one in four Californians will be 65 and older, and by 20-35, the number of

adults over 65 will be greater than the number of children under 19.

Perhaps it is these statistics that inspired the Board of Supervisors to join the network

and support the creation of the plan that it's before you now.

It's a representative for AARP and as a member of the Sacramento County Adult and Agent

Commission, thank you for your commitment to older adults and their families throughout

the community.

Thank you.

Ms. Angela, don't go anywhere.

Supervisor Kennedy.

Yes, thank you, Chair.

Don, I just want to thank you and AARP.

Most people don't realize how much you do behind the scenes as far as public policy for elderly

people.

And I want to thank you for continuously sending me those cards in the mail to remind

me how old.

Thank you.

Great.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I'd like to speak to Ms. Pam Miller.

Good morning, Chair Sernah and the Board.

Thank you so much for allowing me to speak this morning.

I'm Pam Miller.

I'm the Executive Director of the Area Agency on Aging.

We serve Sacramento and six surrounding counties.

I was honored to be part of this process of your laid-up.

First I want to commend you as a county and as a board to be forward thinking enough

to come up with an action plan that focuses on older adults and people living with disabilities.

Oftentimes, these are overlooked populations, but as you can tell, they're going to be

a very large population going forward.

So I want to thank you for that.

And I also want to comment on selecting the Aging and Disability Resource Connection

to be part of this plan.

The ADRC in Sacramento, I believe, is one of the strongest ADRCs in the state.

The core partners are my agency, resources for independent living, and the Asian Community

Center.

And I think the three of us work really well together.

And I'm looking forward to the great work that we're going to be doing in the future on

this.

So thank you so much.

Thank you, Pam.

And our final speaker today is Sarah Tataporn.

Good morning Mr. Shae and member of the board supervisor.

I'm here.

I have two ahead.

One ahead I'm the president of the ABLE community development.

And for the other, I'm the member of the HAUD-18 adult and 18 commission.

I would like to thank the supervisor Kennedy that nominated me and all of you approved

my nomination and have been serving on the commission in the last eight months on

nine months.

So I'm here to bring to you attention as we do support the plan.

Okay.

And I commend the staff and the consulting agency or affirm that helping to develop

your plan, whether you can see there's over 400,000 senior population in the county.

When I look at the detail of the plan, one thing that touched my heart or my consciousness

is about the limited English speaking population.

That's about 27%.

Now, this day, everything is online.

Everything is online.

So, and I'm part of the limited English speaking community.

I had seen people quite a lot.

And also my, my family had 11 senior, including myself, my wife, my mom, my daughter.

And I had seen a lot of them struggle to access to the services because of their language

barrier.

And that would mean you had to be able to speak English or navigate the internet, which

is the website, trying to access, trying to navigate the system.

If you cannot do that, so you are up luck.

You are sign loud.

You will miss.

Because the other thing, the other thing I actively involved with the National Council

on the 18th, and they have what they call a benefit participation man.

And they focus on three benefits.

One is the SNAP.

The other is SSI and the other is managed, managed, managed, managed saving programs and

doing like that.

Chalkamings of Kauzi had 40,000 people who are eligible for SNAP program, but for whatever

reason, they don't enroll, they don't participate.

And also, the other, the percentage is only 20%.

That's why Kauzi is concerned.

So as we try to implement the plan, I want to see the Kauzi that look at, because there's

a lot of them, 400,000 over there, and less we use the mega scope to concentrate on

off spotlight, to concentrate on certain populations, many of them are going to miss the opportunity.

I'm here to support the program overall.

Thank you so much.

Thank you very much.

Supervisor Desmond.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and really appreciate all the speakers.

I'm happy to move approval of the resolution, adopting the LA DAP and have staff begin the

implementation process.

But starting with Melissa and ARP and the area for agency on aging and the Adelting Aging

Commission appreciate all of your work.

Again, another highlight of the counties, the importance of our role in protecting another

very vulnerable portion of our population.

We started talking about the young in our county and now we're talking about those who

are older and with disabilities.

Something I want to make sure also to put on our radar, I'm looking over at Dave Defonte

and Todd Smith as the land use authority for such a large part of Sacramento County.

I think we need to really always be looking at ways we can either incentivize and attract

more housing options for seniors in the unincorporated area.

I just talked to Shivon yesterday about a visit I have with some people who are running

residential care facilities and we talked about the acute need of more residential facilities

like that.

In my district anyway, a much older population in these older unincorporated areas, they

don't have many options once they're not able to afford to be able.

Not just an affordability issue but just not able to keep up their home, their option

is to go into an institutional type setting or move somewhere else out of the county.

So I think we really need to take advantage of us having that land use authority in such

a large unincorporated area to get more options for seniors both affordable and market rate.

So thank you again, I'm a big supporter of your work and all aspects of it today.

Great comments.

Supervisor Hume.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

First of all, second the motion but I also want to echo some of the comments that were

just made.

Unlike the presentation on welcome homes where it's a very limited demographic of folks that

present a high need and sometimes get more attention paid to them, this is a very important

work and it's important to have this plan laid out and even if we are able-bodied,

God willing, we will all be a part of this demographic and so it's very important.

I want to thank you for the work that you do and I also appreciate getting that card

in the mail that reminds me of the whole thing.

I think many of us do and with that I know there's a motion and a second on the floor.

We've heard from members of the public so thank you for your testimony this morning.

Just remind folks to something I take advantage of as every first Tuesday of the month,

20% off at Walgreens.

If you're-

Paul Fies.

55 or older?

So keep that in mind.

All right.

We have a motion and a second.

Please vote.

In that motion passes unanimous.

Thanks again.

Item number 57 is a presentation of pilot project for installation of flashing yellow

arrow signal indicators.

All right.

Morning, Chair Sernah, fellow board members.

My name is Melissa Jones.

I'm the principal civil engineer for our design section at the Department of Transportation.

I'm here to talk to you today about flashing yellow arrows for left turn operations.

So there are several different kinds of left turn signal operations.

One of those kinds is permissive modes which is making the left turn yielding to oncoming

traffic.

We usually see this when it's a solid green ball.

But it can also be a flashing yellow arrow or a flashing red arrow.

We also have what we're all familiar with in our county right now is protected mode which

is making a left turn on a green arrow.

We have protective permissive mode in which both modes can occur on an approach during

the same cycle.

And we have a variable left turn mode which can change among the modes.

We can be protected, go to protective permissive or even to permissive during different times

of the day or as traffic conditions warrant.

The flashing yellow arrow is identified in the California DMV driver handbook.

And it is an operation that's used throughout the United States including California.

It offers more opportunities to make left turns when traffic volume is low in one or more

directions.

It can help the county meet the goals of the climate action plan by reducing emissions

by 9 to 12%.

It also can reduce intersection delays and still retain the function of the protected

left turn when needed.

And it can be programmed to operate by time of day or even time of season based on vehicle

detection or based on vehicle detection in the term pockets.

The flashing yellow arrow is becoming more and more common in our area in our region.

The city of Roseville first implemented these in 2019 and they currently have 14 installed.

They also have a goal to install four per year at existing locations and the locations

are chosen based on feasibility, engineering, judgment and citizen requests.

The city of Elk Grove has installed 10 of these and are looking to install more in the

future as is the city of Sacramento which currently has three left turn yellow arrows and

two right turn yellow arrows.

Our department will develop certain criteria for determining the locations that we would

install these at.

And we have identified two pilot locations in the Arden Way corridor to install these.

We would implement them together to enhance exposure and education for drivers in the

area and those locations on Arden are at professional drive and at more avenue.

And the implementation of these would coincide with our Arden Way complete streets phase

one project which just started construction.

We're planning to perform extensive public outreach to inform the constituents of this

new signal operation.

We'll have an informational brochure that will be mailed out as well as posted to our website.

We've also developed an informational video that will be posted on the website.

We'll have temporary signage posted on the roadway prior to activation to alert drivers

in the area of the upcoming change in signal operation.

We'll also have permanent signage on the signal mass-darm to instruct drivers to make the

left turn yielding to oncoming traffic.

And we would also coordinate with the various media outlets in the region to cover the pilot

locations prior to activation.

The flashing yellow operation would only be used when certain criteria is met for any

given location.

It would not be activated if a pedestrian movement is being served on the conflicting movement.

It will be deactivated at locations near school crossings at certain times of days such

as drop off and pick up.

And it would be deactivated to allow for protected only the solid green with a simple change

in timing and programming.

So we would be installing these at locations that we can monitor through our traffic operation

center.

And in closing, I just want to acknowledge Doug Moss, our senior civil engineer who's

been very instrumental in getting us to this point.

So with that, I can be happy to answer any questions.

Great.

Thank you, Melissa.

Any questions for staff?

Supervisor Hume.

Thank you, Chair.

Not a question, but I live in the jurisdiction and was on the board at the time when we approved

them and I got to say that these have a little bit of a learning curve, but they function

very well and allow for a better movement of traffic when the light would otherwise keep

things congested.

Yes.

Learning curve was not lost on this here.

Supervisor Desmond, I'm supportive as well.

Thank you for the presentation.

I just want to make sure that our DOT director, Ron Vikery, will commit to joining me at the

community meeting I have after we start this.

So I can redirect all the constituents.

Regardless of how much public outreach you do, there is

still be those who will be upset.

So I appreciate you outlining all the efforts you're going to be making in that regard.

So thank you.

All right, very good.

Okay.

So would you have to adopt a resolution?

Is there any motion?

I will move to adopt the resolution to prove the private project.

All right.

Sir, second.

Okay, it's been moving second.

Madam Clerk, can you public test money?

There is none.

All right, very good.

Please vote.

Thank you all.

And that item passes unanimously.

Next again.

Next item.

Item number 58 is to adopt a resolution implementing Senate Bill 937 requirements regarding the timing

of collection and development impact fees for affordable housing projects.

We're introducing ordinance amending chapter 16.80, 16.81, 16.83, 16.84, 16.85, 16.87, 16.91, 16.85, 16.87,

16.916, 16.100, 16.150, 16.152, 16.155, and 16.160 of the Sacramento County Code relating

to the timing of collection and development impact fees.

Also, way full reading and continue to March 11, 2025 for adoption and direct the County

deputy County executive for community services to take all other necessary actions necessary

to comply with Senate Bill 937.

Great.

Thank you.

Did that include 16.83?

It did.

It did.

Good morning, Chair and fellow board members.

My name is Claudia Wade, County Engineer for Sacramento County.

As introduced, I am before you today regarding SB 937, which is a bill that went into effect

on January 1, 2025.

This requires a collection of impact fees at final inspection or certificate of occupancy

rather than at issuance of building permit for affordable housing.

In order to implement SB 937, staff is requesting the Board of Doctor Resolution to implement

SB 937 and adopt an ordinance which amends the various chapters which were read containing

the affected impact fees.

We are also asking that you empower the deputy County executive for community services

to create policies and administrative procedures for implementation.

Staff is also asking if the Board would like for staff to come back at a later time to

review the feasibility in extending SB 937 for all other residential projects.

If the Board so desires, we come back to the Board with an analysis of potential financial

impacts which could affect developer reimbursements and impacts of the construction, the timing

of construction of CIP projects.

Having the program could help provide relief to developers from a cash flow perspective

as well as stimulate housing production which is consistent with our goals in removing

barriers to the construction of housing.

That concludes my presentation and it is available for any questions.

Thank you, Claudia.

Any questions of staff?

Madam Clerk, do we have any members of the public sign up to address this matter?

There are no public comments.

I will move the recommended actions.

Okay.

It's been moved and it's been moved and seconded.

Please vote.

And that item passes unanimously.

All right, very good.

I believe that concludes our morning calendar.

I will just note that we are remarkably close to our posted schedule though.

So I think things are going well in terms of being a little bit more efficient with our

meetings and I want to thank the clerk in advance for all our help in that regard.

Okay, we do have a closed session so we will then adjourn to closed session remaining

second floor conference.

Come on.

Okay, I'd like to call back to order this meeting of the Sacramento County Board of

Supervisors for Tuesday, February 25th, 2025.

Madam Clerk, we please call the roll and raise a voice of the quorum.

Good afternoon, supervisor Kennedy.

Here.

Desmond Rodriguez.

Here.

Hugh and Chair Serna.

Here.

We do have a quorum.

Very good.

First item please.

Item number 59 is the 2026 one year action plan.

Federal program allocation process workshop number one.

Good afternoon.

First team, Wiker with a SHRA.

And I know we have a PowerPoint.

There it is.

Oh, there it is.

I'm sorry, I'm looking right at it.

Today is the first workshop for the County of Sacramento's 2026 annual action plan.

The workshop provides information on several federal programs and an opportunity to solicit

project ideas.

I'll start with providing a brief overview of the program requirements.

William Albert

oke my class foundation followed.

These high probability challenges led to a 2020

younger career in сегодня morgen versus yeah, quarter second Alma mater.

And as seriously as I爬 the

program equipment an contributed 2026

matter examples of past

that identifies the community needs and strategies to meet these and the strategies to meet these needs.

In addition to the Consolidate Plan had also requires that we prepare an annual action plan

which identifies specific activities and projects that will be undertaken.

The next slide's focus on CDBG funds, the slides show the objectives that were developed in the past Consolidated Plan.

Overall, funds are to help create opportunities for low and moderate income residents through three different avenues,

affordable housing, public facilities, and infrastructure and public services.

In addition to meeting the CDBG objectives, we must also ensure that projects meet the head national objectives

and these include activities that benefit an area which means a location that's primarily residential

at least 51% of the residents must be low and moderate income.

Direct assistance to low and moderate income individuals or households at or below 80% of area-immune income

and low and moderate income housing.

Eligible CDBG activities include public facilities and infrastructure like community centers, playgrounds, streetlights,

public services such as meals and wheels or other shelter operations,

acquisition of land for eligible activities, clearance and remediation activities, and planning administration.

Ineligible activities include general government buildings and expenses, operating and maintenance,

purchasing of equipment, new housing construction, political and religious activities, and regional parks and facilities.

The key word here is regional, a park facility must support a, that has CDBG who must have a neighborhood benefit.

I should note that there are other things that we need to look at when looking at CDBG projects.

One of the most important factors is project readiness.

We have an obligation head to expend the funds in a timely manner.

So it's important that we select projects that are ready to go and that can be completed in 12 to 18 months.

So we typically receive the current year's approval, approved budget amounts from HUD in April of each year.

So for planning purposes, we base the estimated entitlements on the previous years, so in this case 2024.

As you know, Congress has not yet approved a 2025 budget, so our 2025 allocation amounts may be announced later than usual.

In 2026, we're estimating that we will receive approximately 5.9 million for CDBG, and we just review the activities those funds can be used for.

For home, we expect 2.9 million in home typically goes to construction of new multifamily affordable housing projects.

And for ESG, we're estimating $500,000, and these funds help people who are homeless, for example, through rental assistance in an operation of shelters.

So overall, that's about $9.3 million.

For CDBG, the annual entitlement is divided amongst several categories.

The table shows how the funds may be utilized.

For estimating purposes, we will allocate the maximum allow amount for both public services and administration, and then work backwards from there to determine how much is available for other categories.

We are allowed to allocate a maximum of 15% of public services, so that's about $885,000.

And we usually see those funds go to the Mather Community Campus and Meals on Wheels.

The maximum of 20% for planning administration.

This is used to pay for staffing, planning, and fair housing activities.

About 2 million will go to infrastructure and public facility improvements.

And 1.3 million affordable housing in these funds go to multifamily rehabilitation and home repairs for low and moderate income homeowners.

About $400,000 to set aside for projects and agreements cities which are Folsom, Ileton and Galt.

The last category is Capital Reserve, which is a contingency.

The next flu shot, sorry, the next flu, I can't even talk.

Few slides list the infrastructure projects funded over the last five years by Supervisor District.

The slide list parks and this slide list parks and infrastructure projects and districts 1 and 2.

The next one is District 2, which primarily were pedestrian and park improvements.

District 3, we had a lot of complete street projects and park improvements as well.

There's a theme with parks and District 4, parks and lighting improvements.

And lastly District 5, which are projects primarily in the Delta and Rose Millen.

So the final slide here outlines the process to identify projects for 2026.

S.H.A.A. has initiated the process of meeting with county staff to discuss project ideas.

We are currently holding our first action plan workshop.

And in June, we should have a draft list of projects and we'll come back to present those to the Board of Supervisors.

Through October, we'll finalize the action plan and we will come back to the Board of Supervisors in October for approval and submit the plan to.

So that concludes my presentation.

Once again, we welcome any input you might have on action plan projects either now or anytime before the next workshop, which is scheduled for June 3rd.

If you have any questions, we are here to answer them.

Great. Thank you, Christine.

I know that to ourvisor Kennedy is in the queue.

I'm going to ask that question before we get away in the first.

It comes to the public services piece that you mentioned, 15%, I think it was.

How rigid are the guidelines for use of community development block grant funds if the service provider, not necessarily the service, but the service provider is in the incorporated limits of a city.

But we know and we could document the fact that the services are broadly applied or offered to both residents in the unincorporated county and the within the city limits.

And I'm talking specifically about our family resource center located at the Fruit Ridge Community Collaborative.

It's a very odd geography as you're well aware where the collaborative is in a converted repurposed elementary school site that is literally an island surrounded by unincorporated area.

And you and Michelle are painfully aware that every every time this year as it applies to District 1,

I always feel like we have the greatest challenge to really find ways to effectively use available CDBG funding because of the uniqueness of the district in terms of it being primarily city of Sacramento.

So this is something that I don't think I've asked before but I know you know me to be very probing when it comes to creative ways that we might of course stay within the guidelines but seek to help with the timber structure of public services to assist the residents in those communities.

So I would say that if it was a capital improvements which I don't think is your question but it would not be eligible but for public services if you can demonstrate that it's being the recipients are from wide area including the unincorporated county that could possibly be eligible yes.

Okay that's certainly something that I would like you to note and have us explore of course offline but to me the fact that we have the Family Resource Center located where I mentioned I think offers us a unique opportunity to think about how we can maybe assist with their mission and their budget.

So Vice-Candy.

Thank you Chair.

I'm not asking you to crystal ball it but are we hearing anything as far as funding being threatened by the current administration in Washington.

For these programs we haven't heard anything specific no that said because we do not have even a 2025 budget allocation I think there's a lot of uncertainty about the situation for sure.

So like everything else we're on pins and needles yeah.

Okay thank you.

Okay other questions for staff.

All right thank you.

Madam Clerk do we have anyone from the gallery that wishes to address us on this matter.

I do not have any public comment.

Very good this is a presentation only no action and to workshop so again appreciate the information Christine and I'm sure all of us look forward to one on one with you

and Michelle in the coming weeks to nail down how we're going to allocate the CDBG funds.

Thank you.

Thank you.

All right next item.

Our next item is time for 230 PM.

Look how efficient we are.

All right.

Seeing as we've already blown through our nominations and appointments for our own ranks I don't believe Madam Clerk that we have other.

For functary matters in front of us that we could use those.

18 minutes for nothing for the 18 minutes.

All right well then you get 18 minutes back.

We are in recess until 230.

Okay I'd like to call back to order this meeting of Sacramento County Board of Supervisors for Tuesday February 25th 2025.

Madam Clerk please call the roll and establish a corner.

Thank you. Supervisors Kennedy.

Here. Desmond.

Rodriguez.

Here.

Hume. Here.

And Chersternah.

Here.

We do have a corner.

All right.

Okay next item please.

Item number 60 is PLMP 2024-006065.

Number of five south, a vesting tentative subdivision map recent middle and design review for a property located approximately one half mile from the intersection of Brad Rothschild Road and Bollinger.

Bollinger Drive in the vineyard community.

The applicant is Burrell Consulting Group Incorporated APN 0660070049.

The environmental document is in an end.

Good afternoon.

Hello. Good afternoon.

I'm a patent senior planner here to present the Morvis southeast project for you.

So the project site is located approximately one half mile west of the intersection of Bradshaw Road and Bollinger Drive in the North Venerations specific plan area.

Project site is shown here in red.

The map shows the project site in the context of other proposed and approved subdivisions in the North Venerations specific plan.

It might be kind of hard to see on this exhibit here, but this slide in this property in green is our subject site.

The project site is zoned residential five and recreation and is near the constructed vineyard point subdivision to the south.

The recently approved spring garden subdivision to the east and the approved but reconstructed Morvis southwest subdivision to the west that Morvis southwest.

The proposed map is a resubmital of a expired map.

The board first approved the Morvis southeast entitlement package on June 25th, 2007.

This entitlement package established the property specific plan, land use designation and its zoning.

That map, though, ultimately expired on March 6th, 2023.

So although the current proposal is referred to as a resubmital, it is considered a new map that is subject to our current ordinances, policies and standards.

With that, the applicant is requesting the new Vesting Tentative subdivision map and a design review to comply with the countywide design guidelines.

I do want to note that as this is a vesting map, it is subject to the board's review and approval.

Typically, a tentative subdivision map only goes up to the planning commission.

The vesting map is a form of tentative subdivision map which confers a vested right to proceed with development consistent with the ordinances, policies and standards and effect at the time of the vesting tentative maps approval.

Here is a slide showing the proposed map. The proposed map would result in 102 single-family residential parcels to landscape lots and one park parcel.

Primary access would be off of fourth street to the north. Fourth street is being constructed in phases as subdivisions are constructed.

That fourth street will continue on connecting west over to Waterman Road.

The park parcel is situated at the north east corner of the property. It is at 1.7 acre site.

I do want to note that it will connect to the park and open space site located over to the east at the spring garden subdivision which was recently approved.

I will note that staff worked with the applicant team on several changes to this map from its original version.

Those changes resulted in increased public access to the park site and a decreased number of backup lots and site on lot to that park site.

There is also additional access roads and a reduction in the number of dead end courts.

There are a few documents relevant to the environmental review for this project.

When the North Finnexation specific plan was adopted in 1998 and EIR was prepared that identified significant cumulative impacts resulting from development of the plan area as a whole.

Subsequently, a project specific initial study and mitigated negative declaration was prepared for the original Morvis-aust project.

That determined that the project would not have significant impact on the environment with the implementation of mitigation measures.

For this current proposal, an addendum was prepared to the previous initial study and MND. The addendum concluded that no substantial changes are proposed in the project which would require major revisions to the previous MND.

The project was presented to applicable advisory bodies. The Design Review Advisory Committee met on April 25th, 2024.

Drac members felt the proposed circulation improved compared to the original map and recommended that the board find the project in substantial compliance with the countywide design guidelines.

The vineyard CPAC met later on May 9th, 2024.

No public comments were received during this meeting and CPAC members supported the project voting 3-S-0-0-1 absent to recommend its approval to the board by the board.

And then the Planning Commission met on December 16th, 2024. No public comments were received and the Planning Commission voted 3-S-0-0-2 absent to recommend that the board approve the requested entitlements.

The proposed project is consistent with county ordinances and policies, including applicable general plan policies.

The project is also consistent with the policies of the North Vineyard Station-specific plan, its development standards and design guidelines, as well as the zoning code.

All required tentative map findings can be made and finally, as conditioned with the implementation of required mitigation measures, there are no significant environmental concerns.

So based on the analysis today, and as further noted in the staff report, staff recommends that the board determine the previously adopted mitigation negative mitigated negative declaration together with the sequel agenda is adequate and complete.

That you adopt the mitigation monitoring and reporting program, that you approve the vesting tentative sub-visit map, subject to the findings and conditions, and that you find the project in substantial compliance with the countywide design guidelines.

That concludes my presentation and the opportunity to answer any questions.

Great. Thank you, Emma. Any questions for staff?

Okay. Madam Clerk, do we have anyone from the public that wishes to address the board on this matter?

We do not.

Okay. In that case, an entertain a motion?

I will move to approve the recommended action.

Okay. Is there a second?

Second.

Right. It's been moved and seconded. Please vote.

And that item does pass unanimously.

And of course, while we're getting better, right?

All right. So we will be in recess till 245.

Okay. I'd like to call back to order this meeting in the Sacramento County Board of Supervisors for Tuesday, February 25th, 2025.

Madam Clerk, please call the roll and raise the average.

Good afternoon, Supervisor Schenny.

Here.

Desmond.

Rodriguez. Here.

Hugh.

And chair, sir.

Still here.

All right.

All right.

Next item, please.

Item number 60, 61.

CLMP 2019-00209.

No other VISTA congregate care facility.

An appeal of the planning commission's approval of a use permit, minor use permit, special development permit, and design review for properties located at the Southwest corner of Roosevelt Avenue, and 47th Street intersection in the South Sacramento community.

APN number is 0200301-002-003-006-007.

01007011-013 and 023.

The environmental document is mitigated negative declaration.

Thank you.

Thank you.

This project is PLNP 2019-

You want to introduce yourself?

Sorry, my apologies.

I'm Leon Mueller with Planning and Environmental Review, Project Planner for this project, and this project is 2019-00209.

It's then the Wavivista Congregate Care Facility Appeal.

Very good.

Thank you, sir.

This project is located near the Southwest corner of Roosevelt Avenue, and 47th Street in the South Sacramento community.

The project site does consist of seven parcels that are developed with an existing congregate care facility, single-family residences, or duplexes, or are vacant.

This area is a mix between the City of Sacramento and the County of Sacramento.

The subject parcels, which are in the red hash here, have the zoning districts of RD5, RD15, and RD20.

The surrounding land uses do consist of single-family residences with RD5 and RD20 zoning, and in the City of Sacramento, which is located here, and here it is a mix of single-family residences with R1, and there is a community center to the West.

In 1996, the zoning administrator granted a use permit, which allowed the expansion of an existing residential care facility to a maximum of 49 residences, residents, on approximately 1.14 acres.

This use permit is active for that facility at 4604 Roosevelt Avenue.

The site does contain four existing buildings that are proposed for reuse, and then they will add in additional 11 buildings, and then there are no active code enforcement cases on this site.

Can you tell me, tell us whether we've had any code enforcement actions in the past?

There has not been any code enforcement.

Thank you.

The entitlements before the board are a use permit and a minor use permit to allow the expansion of that existing congregate-crypt care facility to 140 beds on approximately 3.35 acres.

There is a section along one of the properties where it's adjacent to a neighboring use where they were asking to not have screen trees along there.

However, at the Planning Commission, the applicant did submit a revised landscape plan, which does put those screen trees back in place.

This would be adjacent to an outdoor activity area associated with existing congregate care.

There's also a design review, which would allow for reduction in the required parking spaces from 56 to 48 and to comply with the countywide design guidelines.

A mitigated negative declaration was prepared for this project pursuant to SICWA, and it was released in June of 2024.

The environmental document did analyze impacts to transportation traffic, air quality, hydrology and water quality, biological resources, cultural resources, and greenhouse gas emissions.

The mitigation measures are proposed for nesting raptors and migratory birds, tribal cultural resources, native tree removal, and basic emissions control, and with the implementation of those mitigation measures impacts would be less than significant.

You would have buildings five, which is proposed, which would be their main clinic building, which they're proposing to add, and then building six through eight would be a maintenance building, a clubhouse, and a community building.

Buildings nine and ten would be new dorms that they are proposing, and then along this area here, you would be seeing four of what they're calling cottages, two of them would be residential cottages, and then building 13 or 14 would be smaller clinic buildings.

All the new structures that they're proposing are one-story and height, and they are proposing outdoor amenities such as courtyards and patios that are being provided.

The applicant is proposing to construct in three phases. So phase one is ending up being the development of the parking areas and the counseling building and some of the amenities, and then the second phase would be the new dorms, and then their community building, and then the last phase would be those cottages.

These are the landscape plans I briefly mentioned it in the special development permit. This is what we had been carrying forward, and this is what the applicant had proposed.

The planning commission, as you can see, they do have screening around the perimeter of the property, and this version does have additional screening here, and then here.

Before you leave that slide, the driveway, if I'm not mistaken, is a one-way driveway?

It is a one-way driveway.

And enters off a Roosevelt and goes out on 47th.

Right, and from this illustration here, is there going to be like decorative paving and part of the driveway?

I see the stipple there, and I'm not sure what that is supposed to render. Do you understand what I'm looking at?

I think it's generally indicating that there's a paving. I don't think it's indicating necessarily decorative.

That's unclear just from the nature of the illustration.

Yes.

Okay, and this is intending to show you the overall design of the buildings that the applicant is proposing for the majority of the buildings outside there.

They are going to be looking like this.

So this project went to the CPAC on May 19, 2021 to consider the project and make a recommendation.

For this project, there were six written comments and four verbal comments that were received.

There was one comment that was in support of the rest for an opposition.

The neighbors' concerns that were expressed was that the community experiences an oversaturation of health and human services uses in addition to other social services issues and undesirable activities in this area and community.

That the project would detract from uplifting efforts or potential of the community and that the presence of the facility in the neighborhood would decrease property values.

The neighbors feel unsafe with the presence of that facility.

Ultimately, the CPAC didn't encourage the neighbor concerns and they voted to recommend denial to the planning commission of the proposed project.

The CPAC further voted to authorize an appeal of the item to the Board of Supervisors if the planning commission approved the item, which is why we are here today.

The project also went to DRAC in 2021 and the DRAC did review the project, the design, and ultimately they recommended that the project be found in compliance with the design guidelines and that is their recommendation.

The planning commission heard this item on September 23 of 2024.

Prior to that hearing, there were seven written comments that were received supporting the project and none in opposition.

The planning commission did have questions for staff and the applicant as to calls for service, care mode, staff to patient ratio, and then the priority to serve county residences.

We would note that a detailed summary of the applicant's answers are provided in the board report and at the conclusion of the planning commission hearing, they did vote to recommend approval of the item with an additional condition of approval that was added for the operator to maintain a point of contact with the neighborhood associations in the vicinity to be able to contact them with any issues or concerns about that facility.

So this item was appealed by the chair of the South Sacramento CPAC on October 3 of 2024 and in their appeal they did provide the justification that the neighbors are concerned with the oversaturation of social and health care services in their neighborhood that the facility has brought undesired activity to the neighborhood and that the operator has not been a good neighbor.

And then they also stated that the CPAC had voted to recommend to the planning commission to deny the project in 2021.

I want to make sure I heard you correctly. There was there's been an accusation that they have not been a good neighbor that was expressed that was taken from the appeal. Yes.

Okay.

So the staffs analysis of this project is that again, it is the expansion of the existing congregate care facility which would occur through the adaptation of the existing structures on the site and then the addition of new structures to provide 140 beds on 3.35 acres.

So the staffs are concerned about the construction of the existing structures and the construction of the existing structures.

Again, that would result in the construction of 11 new structures over three phases. This project is consistent with the general plan, community plan and zoning code and with the approval of the special development permit is consistent with the zoning code use and development standards.

And it is compatible with the surrounding uses as conditioned. We would also note that congregate care and other supportive housing uses do not have separation or concentration requirements in the zoning code.

Therefore, the number or location should not be used as a reason for justification of this project.

And we would also note that your board letter does contain details on the number of similar uses in the project zip code and then the calls for service and incident reports at the facility as well.

So the staff recommendation for this project is to deny the appeal planning and environmental review staff does recommend that the board take the following actions deny the appeal and uphold the planning commissions approval of the proposed project.

Determine that the environmental analysis prepared pursuant to seek what is adequate and complete adopt the mitigation monitoring and reporting program and then approve the use permit subject to the findings and conditions in the staff report approve the special development permit also subject to the findings and conditions and find the project in substantial compliance with the design guidelines.

I can answer questions you may have the applicant and the representative is here as well. And then I believe a member of the South Sacramento CPAC is here as well to represent the appeal.

Very good. Thank you, Leanne, for the thorough staff report. Before we continue, I'm going to look to kind of counsel and just remind me and us about kind of the appropriate way we want to orchestrate hearing.

Both the appellant and the applicant in terms of opportunities for rebuttal that kind of thing. I know there's some nuance to it.

Yes, so the appellant should have their opportunity to be heard next and no time limit should be placed on that following them. The applicant should be heard and that should in that comment portion and then we can move to public comment.

Okay, very good. However, before we get to that, I do have some questions for staff, but not necessarily you, Leanne. I'm really kind of looking towards Shavan and Mr. Lutz.

Yeah, maybe I can just start and then if director Lutz wants to expand, you know, as the board has taken actions over the last several years to increase our continuum of care understanding that we have vulnerable populations in our community that lack appropriate treatment and housing.

They need an all CF director Lutz wants to add.

Good afternoon members of the board, Tim Lutz, director of health services. I would just add to as we build out our behavioral health crisis continuum, the types of beds that this facility provides is relatively unique and hard to hard to find placements for.

We have two providers in the county that we work with. I'm Synergy being one of them with these types of beds and when you think about our behavioral health system as a continuum and we, you know, look at acute psychiatric cases and then you look at our sub-acute where people might be longer term trying to recover.

This is a pathway down a step down from that higher level intensive services that they would see at a sub-acute.

One of our goals across all of our health programs and social service programs is really trying to create areas or spaces where people can live in the least restrictive environment possible.

This does really meet that criterion definition for where we would want to be continuing to see investments within our behavioral health continuum.

We also would very much support that the increase and continue to work with them. They've been wonderful partners.

Thank you.

Again, another question for a different aspect of what's in front of us and I'm looking at Mr. Jones now.

I know that there's plenty of documentation in the that joins the board letter for this.

This action that we're considering today. There was brief mention of the fact that I believe.

Leanne said that there were no calls for service relative to our sheriff's department. Is there anything you can share in terms of just kind of the history of the use there being, you know, an attractant for criminal behavior or what, you know, maybe someone can share with us whether or not we've had.

Any actual sheriff's reports or police reports that have made it to the record.

None of that. I'm aware of chair just the fact that there were no calls for service. So I got no indications that there were any chronic nuisance problems at that location.

So we've got the faulty w county executive. What we the year was referring to earlier was code enforcement cases but there is some language on page 8 of the staff report that does speak to sheriff department provided data.

and it does say that from January 1st, 2023 to December 24th, 2024, that's about a two-year period.

There were 66 calls for service, and there's a little bit of detail there.

Okay.

Is there any flavor to that?

Do we understand the nature of the calls?

Let me read briefly here.

Of those calls for service, 19 crime reports where the Sheriff's Office completed a report

related to an incident were generated.

Fourteen of those reports were for a missing person located.

Okay, and some additional details as well.

Okay, very good.

Thank you.

All right, so we will now then hear from the appellant.

So I believe that would be a representative from CPAC.

And I will not put a clock on you, but I'll still be scolded by County Council.

So.

Thank you.

Good afternoon supervisors.

My name is Burke Lucy.

I represent the South Sacramento CPAC.

I'm a current member and past chair of the CPAC.

I represent the neighbors who overwhelmingly oppose the proposal to more than double this

congregate care facilities capacity in an already distressed neighborhood.

First, I have to say this is very rare for us.

I've been a member of the CPAC for 18 years, and this is the first time I've ever presented

before the board.

And second, I'm sorry I was not able to attend last week's Revitalized South Sacramento

Summit since I was out of town, but that is exactly what we want to see in South Sacramento

revitalizing more than these kinds of projects.

And third, I do what to say.

I applaud the mission of synergy.

And I think the neighbors do too.

Just we have a lot of concerns.

In 2018, after, well, the synergy already had the plans to expand by 2018.

And before an early CPAC workshop, they invited us to a site visit.

I visited the site and I believe supervisors Kennedy and Serna did too at a separate time.

I had no objections to the existing site at the time.

When the applicant came before our CPAC in 2021, two things led to our unanimous vote

against the project, the neighbor's testimony, and ironically, the applicant's response

to that testimony.

And our last meeting for this project, late last year, only continued to reiterate the

issues that we've heard in 2018 and 2021 and 2024.

As the neighbors pointed out, this neighborhood already has an 85-bed homeless shelter just

a block to the north.

They have a liquor store with vacancy issues less than half a mile to the west.

106 low-income housing units just beyond that.

Prostitution, along Stockton Boulevard, less than half a mile to the east.

And they reported problems with illegal dumping, boarded up homes, and a high crime rate.

The neighbors expressed concern that the facility has done next to nothing for the neighborhood

in the last ten years.

How long they have been in the property.

And that more than doubling the number of beds at this facility would seriously affect

their property values and safety.

Can I interrupt?

Yes.

When you say that you haven't done anything, or I know you're kind of paraphrasing based

on what you heard, but when that reference was made or continues to be made, they haven't

done anything for the community or neighborhood and they're likely not to, I guess.

What does that mean?

That means the applicant noted that they have, I think, in the range of 20, something

of the clients, county-wide, that they are serving from Sacramento.

From Sacramento County, from all of their facilities.

I believe that means close to eight in this particular facility, the rest are from

Salano County, Chasta, and Riverside County.

That helps me understand what that means.

Because I was thinking something completely different.

In terms of, we asked about outreach, if they provided any kind of outreach to the neighbors

to see if they notified the neighbors.

And at first, they weren't aware of a neighborhood association meeting.

And then one of the applicant representatives did say they attended it and the association

said that they didn't follow up or do anything and they just attended.

So that was essentially the extent of-

Thank you for the neighborhood.

Thank you.

Let's see.

Over the years, in 2018, 2021 and 2024, we have consistently heard from neighbors

truly invested in this community, all opposing this expansion project, including David

Robards, who lives a block away, Alice White, with the Fruit Ridge Community Association,

Michael Blair, in the neighborhood for 20 years, representing the Oak Park Community Association,

our Del Harrison, Property Owner, and Developer, a block away for 37 years, and President

of the Sacramento Chapter of the NAACP.

And we heard from Mr. Kanuk, Israel, who has been in the area for 34 years and runs an

urban farm less than a block away on Roosevelt Avenue, another project that we should be supporting

in the South Sacramento neighborhood.

He talked about a patient hitting up his 18-year-old daughter multiple times.

And when confronted, the facility could do nothing but confirm that he came from their

facility and restrict his privileges.

Mr. Israel said that type of behavior happens often, just not necessarily from the facility,

but that is the point.

This neighborhood is already overburdened.

In response to concerns over property values, the applicant pointed out property values

can actually improve around their facilities, noting their facility in Morgan Hill, was

surrounded by houses in the $350 to $400,000 range that are now over $1 million.

Morgan Hill is a small bedroom community of San Jose, but I think this makes our point

also.

The applicant confirmed that their Morgan Hill location is not in an impoverished area,

so let's compare the two.

In this instance track surrounding this Sacramento facility compared to their Morgan Hill facility,

if you had a daughter here, she is twice as likely to be born with low birth weight, 5.5

pounds or less, suggesting poor nutrition, lack of prenatal care, stress, and mother smoking.

She sees twice the rate of toxic releases hazardous waste and lead from housing here, then

in Morgan Hill.

She sees four times the places where groundwater may be polluted.

She sees five times the level of small particulate matter, which most affects children, the elderly,

and people suffering from heart or lung disease, asthma or chronic illness.

In fact, she and her neighbors can expect twice the rate of emergency room visits due

to the asthma, due to asthma, then in Morgan Hill.

She and her neighbors have twice the rate of households with no one over the age of 14,

speaking English well.

She and she is 14 times more likely to reach the age of 16, be eligible for the labor force,

and be unemployed.

She and her classmates are twice as likely to reach the age of 25 with less than at high school

education.

She and her neighbors are twice as likely to be both low income, making less than 80%

of the county's median family income, and severely burdened by housing costs, paying

greater than 50% of her income for housing.

And more specifically to the facility that's treating in part sexual behavior.

She is currently surrounded by 21 times more sex offenders in a one-mile radius than

their Morgan Hill facility.

As a parent, you likely feel your son or daughter can truly be exceptional.

But if they have these kinds of disadvantages to start, then tell me whether you really

believe adding up to 80 more mental health patients next door across the street down

the block would not really matter to you.

I'm not surprised the school chose to locate next to the Morgan Hill facility.

I'm also not surprised their property values increased.

The median income value surrounding the Morgan Hill facility is actually $1.6 million today.

But actually, it's a lot less than the average $2.3 million dollar value for the county

wide.

The applicant reported in 2023 their contract with Sacramento County was $4.2 million

for close to 25 clients.

That's about $100,000 per client.

So at that rate, this expansion could mean up to 14 million more than in a contract

per year.

When I asked the applicant why they chose to ask for a 10-foot setback from a residential

property instead of the required 25-foot setback or why they had limited landscaping in the

parking area, all I heard no site-specific reasons, just that they wanted to fit more

beds into this property.

And today I've heard six more than the one we heard in the last meeting.

I heard a neighbor comment that a reduced number of required parking spots makes sense

and I agree.

It makes sense for this kind of facility.

The rest is to be gracious to serve more clients, to be less than gracious to get more

money with special concessions because people in distressed neighborhoods tend to put up

less of a fight.

So the neighbors are legitimately concerned about property values, safety, and the applicant

has done next to nothing for the neighborhood in the past.

But however many years they've been there, this facility serves only a small number of people

from Sacramento County.

Mostly this project serves, again, people from Solano, Shasta, and Riverside counties.

You could keep those millions in contract dollars in other Sacramento County neighborhoods

that are like Morgan Hill, just like one seven miles away across the American River,

for instance, but not in that neighborhood enough is enough.

Thank you.

Thank you for your 18 years of service.

This I suspect was a statement that was conveyed in person at the Planning Commission as well.

I was not asked to represent.

Okay, but I assume you were well aware that there was a Planning Commission meeting where

this was agendas.

I'm not the chair.

I'm not aware of what the process was.

Okay.

All right.

Thank you.

Yeah.

Okay.

I guess we'll hear from the applicant now.

Good afternoon, Chair, sir, and members of the board, Brian Holloway, Holloway Land

Company, representing Synergy, Congress, and with me today is Linda Kaufman, who is the

Vice President of Development and resident relations, and she brought several of her staff

with her to, and all of us will hopefully be able to answer your questions.

First thing I'd like to do is to thank our planner, Leanne Mueller, for her very thorough

staff report and her hardware in getting us to and through the planning process to your

board.

On your desk is a handout that I delivered earlier.

Basically, it's just a summary of the details of the project and then some specifics about

the facility and several exhibits that actually some of these I'm going to show.

So Nueva Vista Sacramento is an existing congregate care facility that you've heard about serving

basically vulnerable adults who are no longer capable of taking care of themselves.

Without these kinds of facilities, these individuals would either be on the street or be significantly

failing in their ability to maintain their well-being.

And unfortunately over the last five years, these kinds of facilities serve these kinds

of patients and clients.

We've actually been losing these facilities over the last five years.

The project before you is an expansion of an existing care facility going from 53 individuals

to 140.

And I just have a couple pictures that I want to show you.

This is just, if you haven't been out to the site, give you a feel for the quality of

the material and the entrance.

And this is the entry to the main facility.

Also staff mentioned that there are three individual houses where the residents can move to when

they graduated further through their care process.

Here's an example of the quality of both residential living spaces and the gatherings

talks for the residents.

If you have questions about their treatment model, this is kind of a summary of it, but

Linda can walk you through any of the details you may wish to have.

Mr. Allen, lastly, another exhibit.

Hold on.

Yes.

The image of the cottage, the small house.

You mentioned where clients can graduate too.

Is that still on the campus?

That's not off site.

It's part of the campus.

Okay.

The existing residences have been remodeled to allow four tenants who are ready to move on

to live in smaller, less congregated or less congested facilities.

I think there's four residents per each home.

And those cottages are all within the fence.

Yes.

The facility will be fenced.

Just so you understand real quickly, the brown areas, existing structures, and the sort

of orangeous reddish are future residential buildings that will be coming with the approval

should it happen for this project?

One thing that, and I've represented these kinds of projects before.

One of the things that's really interesting about this one is actually the first concrete

care kind of facility that actually allows the residents to go out into the community and

volunteer their time for the benefits of the neighborhood and the benefits of the overall

South Sacramento community.

And so this is a list of just the resident volunteer hours that have gone out in the

last, in 2003 and 2023.

24.

One thing that I did hear from the appellant was that the project and it doesn't makes

no contributions to the community.

So what I'd like to do is hand to the clerk who will give to you copies of the outreach

and the benefits to the community that have occurred in 2003 and 2024.

I'm not going to put these on the screen, but there's basically two and a half pages

of efforts by this organization and their staff.

In addition to the residents going out in the community and contributing, this is a list

of what the staff and their efforts have been.

So I just wanted to address the issue of no contribution and not a bad, not a good neighbor.

We have read the staff report and we agree with the findings and the conditions of approval

and we are ready to receive your questions any of them that you may have.

And Linda Coffman and I will be ready for whatever questions you have.

Thank you.

Thank you, Brian.

Yeah, Linda, why don't you come to the podium?

And just so everyone is well aware and for the benefit of full transparency, I did have

the opportunity to meet with Mr. Holloway and Coffman as well as meeting with representatives

from the South of Park Community Association and residents that live nearby.

So I've had an opportunity to recently hear kind of both sides, but what I'd like to hear

from you, Linda, so that everyone can understand it is maybe a little bit more detail about

kind of the nature of the clientele.

So what is their general disposition, what are they required to do in terms of, for example,

maintaining their medication schedules, those types of things, so maybe you can enlighten

this.

Can you hear me?

Okay, sorry.

It's best to speak between the microphones.

Okay.

Sorry, Brian.

So our clients are typically ones, I think 80, 80 to 85% are diagnosed with schizophrenia

and then secondary diagnoses can, a lot of medical, insulin-dependent diabetic, claustomy

bags, hypertension, a lot of diabetic clients, some with intellectual disabilities mild

to moderate.

So that's kind of the profile of the majority of our clients.

They are coming from higher levels of care or an MHRC, a mental health rehabilitation

center like Creswood that's unstocked it.

So we are very careful about who we accept if they're going to be appropriate for our level

of care.

One of the things that we've talked about and we support, so we have a medication room

that is staffed all day long and we're passing out the medications.

So that means that we are watching clients take the medication, we're monitoring, we're

tracking that.

Some clients are on crushed medications.

That's where we'll also give them insulin or form in or their medical medications.

Individuals that refuse their medication or do not want to take their medication, the

first thing we do is try and get them into the doctor, our doctor or psychiatrist.

Because we want to know why they are refusing their medication, they don't want to take

the medication.

It could be because they have side effects because they sleep too long, it makes them

shaky.

Whatever those reasons are we try and address.

If they continue to refuse or psychotropic medications, then most of our clients are

conserved and so we can ask that they be sent to a hospital for stabilization, figure

out what the medication is that's going to be best for them.

A lot of our clients are on long acting injectables called LAIs, probably 60%.

So that means that our clients are medicated.

I hope that answers that piece for you.

Those are psychotropic medications.

Psychotropic medications.

They do have the right to refuse medical medications.

However, if somebody is so impaired that their blood sugars are going up to 350 or something

because they refuse that, then that's another reason we would probably advocate for them

to go to a hospital to be stabilized.

Tell me, share here what you shared with me one-on-one the other day about the links that

your staff will go to to ensure that they are taking their required medications and that

they are not ingesting illegal drugs.

So those are two separate things.

So definitely at length, so we watch our clients take their medication and swallow.

We're not the type of environment where we ask you to stick out your tongue.

If we feel like maybe there is a chance of you not swallowing your medication, we'll

have you eat some applesauce or crackers, something to ensure that you have taken the

medication.

And I will say that our clients do not need to be in a locked facility, but they also

are not going to be supported so well on their own and their own apartment.

Substance use disorder, we have a very strong and crystal and Miranda can talk about our

dual recovery program.

So one of the things we started recently, sorry, one of the things we started recently

is having an ATF dog come on campus.

We had our first, I don't know what you call it, search.

It's sniffing about two weeks ago and that has been good.

We've of course notified the clients and the staff and everybody that this was going

to be happening.

We plan to do more of those visits.

So with an enclosed campus one, we're trying to make sure that no influences come on our

campus, but we are specifically sniffing for meth fentanyl marijuana.

It is a community that we are not allowed any drugs or alcohol on campus, staff or anybody

clients.

But at the same time, we have clinicians on our campus, we have therapists, we have recovery

coaches, we have peer support specialists, we have psychiatrists, all to support people

getting better.

And thank you for that.

What about their disposition generally, especially when they're taking what they're prescribed?

I would say the disposition and it's hard to mandate that somebody goes to their therapy

appointments.

However, if they don't go to their appointments, we want to know why, but what's going on.

So Schizophrenia, one of the primary symptoms of schizophrenia is isolateive.

We want them to come out, we want them to go to groups, we want them to go on walks in

the community with our staff.

So in a way, we're hoping that they start engaging more.

This is why Shana does all these outreach efforts to slowly, groups of three, groups of

four that were slowly integrating people.

Isolativeness, not wanting to get out of your room is probably more a concern than anything

to be honest in that recovery piece.

Very good.

Thank you.

Don't go away here.

We have other members of the board that have questions.

We'll start with Supervisor Rodriguez.

Good afternoon.

What kinds of crimes would disqualify an individual from residency at Synergy?

Typically, it's going to be the time since your crime.

We have had clients that are on mental health diversion that they're supervised by the court.

We have to send a report to the court if somebody leaves when they're not supposed to.

That's a court ordered.

We can't put hands on.

We can't do anything like that.

As you heard, we do have missing person reports.

We always try to know exactly where our clients are.

You have three meals, two snacks.

Those are check-ins that we're logging.

Who's there?

You have medication passes.

That's four times, an additional four times during the day.

Then at night, we are doing room checks from 10 o'clock to 8 o'clock in the morning, every

two hours.

That's not a requirement by licensing.

We want to know where our clients are.

That answers your question.

We do have clients that if they leave, our clients are conserved.

That means we have to know where they are at all times.

If we don't, that's when we find all those missing person reports.

Thank you.

Supervisor Desmond.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Linda, for being here and appreciate the conversation.

A couple of questions I had for you.

I'm looking at the community matters log.

Can you tell me a little bit more about your—you talk about the exercises you were sitting

over, contact that occurs off campus?

Can you tell me a little more about your efforts to, I guess, control that or deal with issues

that come up off campus in the surrounding neighborhoods?

You've already heard about one complaint, and we know about that complaint.

And that's exactly how we want to go.

You come to our campus.

You tell us about your concerns, and that person is no longer allowed access to the community

voluntarily.

In that particular situation, we moved the client to another campus.

All of the things listed in our community matters and our good neighbor policy, they were

really followed to a T.

I think that's what we would like to have is people come and tell us.

Our phone number is on a poster board on the front.

Our website, all of those phone calls go to me in half for the last 14 years.

I mean, all of them.

There's a lot of phone calls.

So I am the website answer.

If somebody leaves the campus, we ask that they sign in and out.

So we know how long they're going to be gone.

Most of our clients go out with staff in group situations.

If they're going to go for an overnight pass, we have them sign that and kind of find

out who they're going with and get that permission.

So we have daily passes, we have signing in, signing out, and then we have overnight passes,

typically with family.

Okay.

I appreciate that.

And it's important hearing this directly from you.

Are there ever any restrictions on residents?

Can they, you know, don't be in this surrounding neighborhood?

Do you ever impose any kinds of limitations like that in a church of any of their facilities?

Are there ever some complaints or some concerns about our clients walking by some houses?

So we ask that they walk on the other side of the street.

You know, I'm not saying that's the one thing that's going to make everyone feel comfortable,

but it is one thing that we could do.

But it's not, if I would imagine, as problems arise, you can address it through this off-campus

conduct policy.

Yeah, absolutely.

And then I may have missed it.

I looked in the staff report and the attachments.

Was there anything in here that showed the log for the number of incidents?

Because it looks like in your community matters, log, you have a very well-defined process

for logging any one of these community concerns.

Is there anything like that in the board materials relating to incidents occurring at this

that have occurred at this site?

So I would say one of the things that I think has came out of the 2021 meeting that we

had is I think we've done.

And activities, I don't think we were good at documenting them.

So that's one thing that we're trying to do is document our activities.

I'm talking more about negative issues or incidents.

That's what I'm talking about.

Did you have a log that recorded those?

Those are the community matters, kind of a play on words there.

But yeah, so we try and manage those.

The one that I know of personally, and we've all talked about as an organization, is the

one instance that came up in October of last year.

And I think from 2018, visitor 2021, Mr. Lucy, talked about an incident at a liquor store,

one of our clients.

I don't remember being told about that, who the client was.

I don't know about that one.

But yes, we try.

And that is crystals.

So it's probably too many.

Okay, but have any incidents with neighbors that are a complaint about the facility or

residents or something, those records are maintained by synergies.

Okay, and last question for now is, you and I have this discussion.

I think a little bit the other day is the residents you serve are not all from Sacramento County.

Is that correct?

That is correct.

Where what percentage would you estimate would be from Sacramento County at the, I think it's 140 beds,

is the proposal correct?

Anticipated, this is what Supervisor Surnay asked about also.

We began contracting with Sacramento County Behavioral Health in 2021.

So it was kind of right during those beginning stages.

And I did want to make one correction and I absolutely could have said this the wrong way or explained it.

That $2.5 million is a pool of funds.

That is not all synergy funds.

It's a pool of funds for augmented boarding cares.

So that I just want to make that clear that's not all synergy funds.

So I forgot your question.

Well, I just want to know, what do you have an estimate of how many of the 140 beds will be filled by Sacramento County residents versus residents from outside the county?

Any sense of what that might be?

I'm actually asking you to.

Honestly, I would have absolutely 50, 60, 70% of the clients all Sacramento County clients.

And we're talking about right now about how we go into a different funding pool to support that.

We've always, as the host county, we have always prioritized, I think we're going to put them writing now.

We've always prioritized Sacramento County clients.

But it's been three years.

And I would also like to go back to one of the comments that was made about we're not a good neighbor.

We haven't done outreach.

In 2021, I mean, our complete campus was shut down for almost two years because of COVID.

Maybe we weren't doing enough.

Maybe we didn't go to enough hybrid meetings.

I think we're trying to improve that and the documentation for that also.

I would love all Sacramento County clients to be there.

You know, let's.

Let me ask a follow up on that.

So you have similar campuses elsewhere in Northern California.

Do any of those campuses host Sacramento County residents?

Yes.

Yes.

Okay.

So it goes back and forth.

Whatever is the most appropriate place for that person.

If you need to get away from some maybe some negative influences or some traumatic things,

then yeah, maybe the best place for you to go is Greenfield or Morgan Hill.

So Sacramento County has access to all of our five campuses.

And I assume more on a more positive note.

Maybe that's where family might be too.

Absolutely.

Yeah.

Absolutely.

And then can you remind me, remind us about how the good neighbor policy kind of started

and what other similar good neighbor policies do you have on some of your other Northern

California campuses?

So the good neighbor policy started in 2005 when we took our very first client in Santa

Clara in Morgan Hill.

I think we wanted to demonstrate one that we are supporting our clients how to be a good

neighbor.

If you have somebody that's coming from a lock facility for maybe eight, ten years, you

kind of need a little reminding about what a good neighbor looks like.

So I think that was the beginning of it.

It's evolved to reaching out to businesses in the area and we have a great relationship

with them.

We've tried to do open houses outreach, going to try and do more of that, more accessible,

have a better routine schedule, I think.

But the good neighbor policy was intended for people to help us.

I will also say just as a side note that Sacramento County is, I mean, we did the good neighbor

policy because it was a good idea for us and our community.

Sacramento County Behavior Health is the only county that we've ever been asked to have

a good neighbor policy.

So that was nice.

We already had one.

And I think, you know, like anything else, we can improve upon it.

Very good.

I know we have probably a handful of members of the public that wish to address the board

as well.

So I don't want to keep them too long.

But I'll just end with this question to you, Brian.

There's been, I think, fair to say, a bit of an evolving list of conditions.

That have emerged from planning commission and even from our discussion last week about

kind of the intensity of the use, that type of thing.

Can you kind of tell us kind of where we're at as of today in terms of those conditions?

And I'm not talking about the initial conditions, but

those that really came from the planning commission and now here on appeal.

Okay.

Yes, thank you very much.

I was actually going to do that in my rebuttal after public comment, but I can do it now.

I think it's good to do it now because I'd like the public to understand it before they

have a chance to address us.

So we had listened to the comments made at the CPAC meetings from the neighbors.

And we also had our conversation with you and we would like to propose six additional

conditions of approval that I think meet everyone's concerns.

So based upon what we heard, what there's six and I'll go through them really quick.

I think you have a copy of them, hopefully.

The entire facility one shall be fenced, including entry and exit gates.

And the residents as you heard will complete day and overnight passes and sign in and out

of the facility with staff.

Number two is the applicant operator will host an annual open house to the community and

the immediate neighborhood.

My understanding is they did that this week.

And the neighborhood association surprisingly was invited and did not show up and also was

invited to sit down with us energy staff and did not reply.

Is that correct?

That's what I thought.

We offered.

Yep, we offered.

I mean, multiple times.

So number three is the applicant operator shall prepare an annual report to the board of

supervisors regarding community and neighborhood outreach.

And two, identifying any concerns or problems that may have come to them that they're aware

of from the neighborhood and how it will state how those were addressed and resolved.

Number four is the applicant operator will interview potential patients for residency using

three assessments.

Presently they do two assessments before someone's allowed to reside there.

Now they will do three assessments.

Number five, the applicant operator will prioritize Sacramento County residents over other

county referrals.

And responding also to something that Linda mentioned is that the applicant operator will

use drug sniffing dogs at the property for a minimum of three times per year, rather

than the two that they've already done as a trial.

All right.

Thank you.

Appreciate that.

And I'd like to save some time for rebuttal.

Absolutely.

And please do remind us in your rebuttal if necessary, if any of those additional conditions

are responding to what you're hearing from folks.

So supervisor Hume.

Thank you, Chair.

Brian, as you know, I'm a land guy, so I'm going to dig into the map itself a little

bit.

And as I understand it, the special development permit, one of those items that was being

requested to be a waiver is now no longer the landscape in screening.

That has been provided where it was not going to be provided previously.

Is that correct?

I believe so, yes.

Okay.

So then the major issue left then other than some landscape along the parking area is the

10 foot rear and side yard setback that's not being met by the two dormitory buildings.

Other than simply squeezing as much into the space that you have, what is the justification

of the reason is to why we should provide a better place.

Absolutely, that is because it's adjacent to other property that Senator, you already

owns next door where they have a residence for staff.

Can we confirm that?

Because it's actually a night we call.

There's a property to the south on the end of the cul-de-sac and then there's two properties.

It looks like it's not in her head, yes, that's the area.

Okay.

And so they own the lock and the residence next door.

Okay, but what I'm trying to explain is that there's at least three residences that are

affected by that setback.

There's one to the south at the end of the cul-de-sac and then there's two, maybe,

it looks like two to the east.

Yeah.

Leon, maybe you can give us an idea of why that was requested.

We don't have that architect with us today.

Okay.

I think that might help.

I think Leon's going to bring back up the PowerPoint to better address your question.

Great.

That's the wrong agenda item.

Senator, can you please bring up the presentation for item number 61?

The item for Nueva Vista.

So I believe supervisor him what you are referencing is this right here.

This is the two dormitory buildings and it would be a 25-foot setback adjacent to the

other single family residential and the proposing a 10-foot setback and they do have

screening landscaping along there.

So I think my understanding of your question to the applicant would be why there's that 10-foot

setback, correct?

Why are we asking for variance there and then if you look at building number nine which

is the top of the two donut buildings, there is a lot to the south and two lots to the

east that are both, it looks like from the aerial photographs in the staff report that

those are all residential parcels.

Correct.

And I think what the deviation request would be here for the rear yard setback, the side

yard setback would be okay.

Really?

So, okay.

So we're considering one side, a side yard and one side a rear yard.

Yes, that's correct.

Okay.

And so then back to the question regarding the house residents for staff, does synergy own

any of those parcels that are not colored there that are surrounded by the project, either

just to the north of the driveway or up closer to the corner of 47th and Rosewell?

Yeah, I believe that the lots and buildings that are in the state of white are not

Brian.

I apologize.

I believe that the lots and buildings that are in the white area are not owned by synergy.

Okay.

The color areas are.

I would assume that in your assemblage you tried to purchase those properties and the

owners just chose not to sell.

I don't believe so.

I don't think they have.

Okay.

I mean, oftentimes on a project like this you'll see these kind of configurations because

the property owner approached them as often what happens is hey, I see you're doing a project

you're going to be expanding would you like my lot, my house, what have you?

That's very often what happens.

The only place outside as 4620 is that is our house.

It's outside of the CUP.

It's on the corner of 47th and Rosevelt.

That one is outside.

Okay.

But you loan it.

But we own it.

It's not a corner.

It's just it's the corner of, I mean, it abuts the the fruit community collaborative

correct?

No.

No.

Other side.

Well, I don't understand that.

So that so right now I that's where I live.

So I stay there.

Staff stays there when they're traveling.

But it's outside the CUP.

So it's a privately owned.

I understand that.

But is it an actual corner lot?

Yeah, it's on the corner.

So I'm going to say yes.

I don't.

Okay.

It's definitely on the corner 4620 Rosevelt.

What's the what's the cross street?

It's 47th and Rosevelt.

Okay.

All in the same question.

Gotcha.

All right.

Because I thought there was a house to the west that was also that's why I'm confused.

There is the other brown one is that one is a two story duplex upstairs.

One of our staff live there permanently.

And then downstairs is our HR office and also staff housing for visiting traveling staff.

So you literally have staff that are on both sides of the campus.

Correct.

Okay.

Is that complete your line of questioning?

Okay.

Very good.

Okay.

I think that's it for now.

But of course, be prepared to address any other questions or statements the board makes.

And at this time, we're going to hear from the public.

So Madam Clerk, first name, please.

The first speaker is Trustler Gilbreath.

And again, I'm going to respectfully ask that those that wish to address the board.

Please keep your testimony to two minutes.

That way everyone has a chance to address us if he's so true.

Greetings and greetings and good afternoon to you all.

My name is Trustler Gilbreath.

After careful consideration, the South O Park Community Association, a local resident

led neighborhood association for the area has determined that Nuevo Vesta proposed facility

expansion is not in the best interest of our community.

We find, in fact, it works in opposition of the extensive uplifting efforts that proposed

expansion will add to the number of health and human service agencies and an already

burdened neighborhood.

From our assessment within one square mile radius, we already have several social service

programs along with other entities and conditions that are undesirable.

Prostitution, illegal dumping, sex trafficking and high crimes, as we've mentioned.

Home appreciation is one of the only wealth building opportunities for our families.

We need to do everything possible to help preserve this potential.

Apparently, there are multiple studies being done and the Stockton Boulevard and the desire

for the entertainment centers and things to increase the quality of the residents.

It is very important for us to be understood that we're not saying not in our backyard,

but we already have a full backyard.

We serve these, we see these services as important.

However, it is critical for the entire county of Sacramento to share this load equitably.

Just not our neighborhood.

We want to change the economic outlook and bring wealth opportunities to the low income

area.

Communities weigh heavily in health and human services are not likely to view our area

as desirable.

As a county planning committee, you all understand more than most about the importance of space.

A healthy space allows for neighborhoods to engage in one another, children to enjoy

being outdoors with their families and people from different economic social economic backgrounds.

Can you please include your remarks?

Yes.

So the request, we request respectfully that the denial for the Nueva Vista Proposal Expansion,

we believe that the expansion would undermine our efforts to work together with an vision

for upliftment in our community.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next speaker is Ricardo Alumada.

Good afternoon, everybody.

My name is Ricardo Almada.

I work with Synergy Programs as the facility manager for the past nine years and have the

privilege of overseeing five different properties within the company.

My time here has been marked by significant and personal and professional growth as well

as witnessing firsthand the positive changes Synergy has fostered in both the properties

and the surrounding neighborhoods.

Throughout my nine years at Synergy Programs, I've had the opportunity to manage several

properties each presenting its own unique challenges and rewards.

I've been responsible for the day-to-day facilities operations, including overseeing maintenance,

ensuring tenant satisfaction and coordinating various projects aimed at improving the living

conditions of those in our care.

My role has involved not only operational management, but also fostering a sense of community within

the properties, striving to create safe, comfortable, and supportive environments for all

residents.

One of the most rewarding aspects of my job has been seeing the transformation of properties

over time.

I've witnessed significant improvements in both the physical condition of the properties

as well as in the quality of life for the residents.

This includes major upgrades such as building renovations, landscape projects, ensuring

all properties pass annual fire inspections, update and overseeing installation of security

systems like camera and lighting on campus, all of which have played a crucial role in enhancing

the living experience of the people in our community.

Overall the properties I have overseen, 46.04, Roosevelt Avenue stands out as one of the

most rewarding success stories.

When I first started managing the property, it faced several challenges, outdated infrastructure,

security concerns, and a lack of proper maintenance.

For time, synergies commitment to investing the property began to show.

For the past three years, I have had the unique opportunity to live next door to Nuevo Vista

Sacramento at 45.14, Roosevelt Avenue, another one of synergies properties.

My wife and I have been living here without any safety concerns for ourselves or our baby

girl arriving March 2025.

We plan to raise her in the community.

Our residents, my neighbors, are friendly, engaging, and respectful at all times.

I approve and endorse the expansion of Nuevo Vista Sacramento.

Thank you and congratulations.

Lavania Phillips.

I can use this mic down here.

Yeah.

Thank you.

Afternoon, y'all.

Good afternoon.

Hi, never thought I would be coming before you to advise that Oak Park needs less.

But the area in which this expansion project is affecting is a tab, social, emotional,

and economical that my neighborhood and my neighbors cannot afford.

I'm sure it's not lost on you all that this property expansion being considered will

add to that tab.

This area already has illicit activities on Stockton Boulevard.

High crime and others pointed out by the gentleman representing CPAC, you know, things

that occur in distressed areas.

Expanding a treatment center in the area will provide no benefit for us.

A distressed area is distressed by systemic design.

Removal or limitations of resources in this area makes it easier to infiltrate an area

such as this, especially where it's difficult for my neighbors to come to a meeting in the

middle of a work day for most folks.

I work for Sacramento County.

I took some time off today.

The fallout amounts to a continued decrease in property values, which will lead to fewer

and or stagnant and or declining opportunities for my neighbors to build generational wealth.

We need less of this, less in fill.

And I have no problem with the way this system seems to be working.

I applaud what synergy is doing.

But it's not helping anyone on the outside of that seven foot fence.

Less governmental approval of gentrification to benefit those who don't know or refuse

to know who we are and what we need.

To synergy, I say, don't dump your garbage in our neighborhood.

How many local residents will be in these beds that aren't part of the organization's overflow

from their out of town facilities?

If one is looking at a least restrictive environment for those receiving care in this facility, it's

not going to be found here.

Folks receiving care here are no safer outside the facility than we are.

Community service is dog whistle for reusing this distressed neighborhood to look like we're

doing something good.

It's part of the treatment plan I'm believing to have centers placed and already distressed

areas so they can do good in the hood.

Whose hood though?

I'd love to see the demographic, so the clients you see on top of the already statistically

insignificant number of local residents.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And this is LaVinia Phillips.

On weight, no.

Michael Blair.

Hello, Supervisor Smiths, Mr. Chair.

I'm Michael Blair and I'm a 20 plus year resident of Oak Park.

I am on the board of the South Oak Park Community Association.

I'm also on the board of the Oak Park Neighborhood Association and former City Council Member

Jationere had a nonprofit called Way Up.

I was executive director for that over the Oak Park area and then I'm also on the

Fruit Ridge Community Collaborative Tenant Board.

So I know Oak Park.

I am Oak Park.

I live there and I know the residents.

And as we look at that community, we look at this one square mile.

So I want to make sure this sinks in because we have low income housing.

We have a homeless shelter.

We have multiple group homes.

We have a cannabis retailer coming.

We have this mental health facility trying to expand.

Now it'd be one thing if this was all over the city but this is just one square mile

we're talking about.

And I ask would you want to live there?

Would you want to raise your kids there?

Add on to that in this area.

The prostitution, the heavy crime rate, the gangs, the illegal dumping, the multiple sex offenders.

If you look at this map, I sent the copy to you and if you look at the map, it's incredible.

I have a daughter who attended St. Hope and I would not let her walk to school.

She's 30 years old today.

I still wouldn't let her take that walk.

We have problems here.

Increasing what we have now is not going to help.

We need to figure out ways to uplift this area.

Neighborhood association works hard to do a lot of work to try to galvanize the community,

get the neighbors together so they can feel proud about where they live.

My grandmother is 102 years old.

I'm with her right now in Natomas and so just watching her for a while while my mom's

out of town.

When we go walking down the street, we enjoy the peace.

We don't have that in South O'Hart and we need that.

And expanding this facility will not help to do that.

So I ask that you really consider if you'd want to live there and with that, conclude

and ask that you reject this proposal.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Shnok Israel.

Good afternoon.

Good afternoon.

Supervisors.

My name is Kenokius Rael and I'm in South Oak Park.

I'm also one of the founding members of the South Oak Park Community Association,

my local urban farmer.

I remember coming before you all some time ago, some of you all are new when we talked

about passing the urban ag ordinance.

Our mission for our farm is transforming the hood for good using agriculture to improve

the community.

So this is something that's very personal to me.

Not only that, but I live probably right down the street from this facility and I am the

person that we talked about whose daughter was approached by one of the residents of this

facility.

Now, I want to say first of all that one, I'm not against what the facility's doing,

synergy, they're doing good work there.

As we talk about the people that are in these facilities, there are at least four sexual

offenders in this facility.

Three of them have a rating of over eight, which means that they are very, very high risk

to recommit.

Now, these things may have happened sometime in the future, there's no problem with that.

But with all the security and all the things that we're talking about of setbacks and fences

and all these things, somehow one of the residents was able to get to our farm stand one

day and try to talk to my daughter in which of course she was, you know, shoot away.

And then at a separate time, she was walking across the street because we have an office

at Fritz Community Collaborative.

He was somehow able to catch her walking across the street and then approach her again to

which she had to run pretty much into the facility and then she called me.

So for me, this is very personal, but in at the same time, once again, we are representing

the community.

We've heard all of the arguments and everything for it, but our community does not want the

expansion of this facility.

And if they could have all been here because many of them are at work, you would hear the

same thing.

So in reality, at the end of the day, the decision is, will you say, even though the community

says we do not want this here, are you going to tell us it does not matter what y'all

think?

So we ask you and plead with you to once again reject this proposal.

Thank you.

Our Dale Harrison.

Good afternoon.

I'm our Dale Harrison.

I'm a property owner and a director of Higher Hope Learning Academy.

I'm also well, was the president of the NAACP term ended December 31.

And I've been in Oak Park and the Sacramento area for a long time.

And what this organization has is commendable.

However, as far as expansion, it's not in the path of growth of Sacramento County.

It's not in the path of growth of the city.

Stockton Boulevard on the east is the county.

On the west is the city.

That's how close we're in a twine.

We got the path of growth.

We got Aggie Square.

Millions of dollars allocated for that project.

Millions of dollars.

Then we move down south toward Little Saigon before you get there.

We have a new apartment, beautiful complex.

I mean that you guys have dumped thousands of dollars, thousands of dollars,

and millions to make this happen.

We move further down and then we have the tiny home community to accommodate the homeless

and the unsheltered.

So these are all factors that they were able to get in our community.

But we don't need to let them expand.

You know, it's ironic.

I used to live in Morgan Hill.

You know, on the mountain, $150,000 house is probably worth $3 million now.

You can buy land in the community.

Three acres right outside of areas where it's not going to be this much detriment.

You know, and I just wanted to emphasize this that it doesn't meet our mandate on the growth

that we are trying to do here in Sacramento.

You know, I look at it, Nimbus, Nimbus, Nimbus, Nimbus.

I don't want another facility like that in my area.

And I just cracked some numbers real quick as a developer right now that property based

on the alleged income is worth $33 million.

If they get the increase, they're going to be worth $84 million.

If the difference is $50 million, now I would be surprised that when Leon Mus here is

about this, he'll be contacting them about what's going on.

Please, let's preserve our path of growth and what we are trying to do for Sacramento

City and Sacramento County.

Thank you.

Elizabeth Kinohopper.

Good afternoon, supervisors and staff and public members.

I did send, oh, that's nice.

Thank you.

We aim to please.

There's going to be a disability.

I did send a letter in, but I'm here in person because I'm here to represent the actual

face of people who need this kind of housing.

I'm a family member of someone who, you know, at note fault to herself falls in this very,

it's a small category, people who don't, who do need these added layers of support.

And I want to point out that it feels to me as I'm listening to the community members

and I hear their cries and I hear their plight at the same time that the examples they're

giving are about crimes that don't happen for people when they're housed with the right

level of care in the right location and the right level of supervision.

And that's what synergy has been working very hard to do.

And at this exact moment, my daughter is still unwell enough to be in an acute care and

very soon she will need a step down bed.

And over time, she's been trying to manage this 15 years and over time, no matter how hard

she tried at note fault to her own willpower, she does need more added support.

In fact, she needs so much more support that's unreasonable to ask a family to step up and

do the things that 24 hour staff with medication supervision can do to keep her from committing

crimes.

And that's exactly what synergy is there to provide.

And also to help her relearn how to become a responsible involved member of the community.

And to do that was supervision.

She has been homeless before and when she got back into housing, she was so traumatized,

she couldn't buy the food for the next meal.

That takes a lot of training and our family stepped up to try to do that.

And nonetheless, there was another psychotic massive break and she needed this added level

of care.

So I'm hoping that and we live in Sacramento and we get frustrated when she's placed

outside Sacramento.

So we need the beds here.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

And the final speaker is Mary and Weaver.

Hello everyone.

I wasn't prepared to speak but I wanted to tell you from my heart what I know about synergy.

I am the landscape architect and I have been working with synergies since 2012.

Started with a project in Greenfield and I am really a witness of seeing how the neighborhoods

actually transformed to a better place, a safer place when after synergy has moved in.

And it is because the staff also works there.

They create a lot of work for social workers and for people to work there.

And they all there daily, they park their cars on the side.

But it makes things safer.

I know that for my own experience of when I first go out to a project that they start,

it literally feels scary.

I came to Roosevelt here when it first started and we just went to get the surveys, et cetera.

And it was scary.

And once they move in and they bring in other people that work there and everything is more,

I want to cry when I see the homeless people on the street.

They help getting those people housed and they are doing good things.

And I can really understand that the neighbors would probably, I would be also worried if I was

a neighbor here, that it would get more crime.

But I really, with my own eyes, have seen that it has changed the neighborhood to the good.

And I mean, we could do a study on that and I have seen it in Greenfield.

I've seen it in Morgan Hill.

And I've even seen it here around in Sacramento, another facility that just kind of opened.

That when I came here first, I really was scared to leave my car or anything near there.

And now since it's open, it's easy peasy.

It feels safe.

You can tell that.

And it's called the eyes on the park.

It's when there's people that are over watching that want good goodness.

And then I want to say that the urban farm, it's beautiful.

They do farm to table.

They have really beautiful furniture.

And our environments can make people feel better and make better people.

That's connect with those neighbors and bring the urban farm to their tables.

Thank you.

Okay.

And is our final public speaker?

All right, very good.

As Mr. Holloway makes his way to the podium, let me make some remarks before we hear from him.

I will be very brief.

Well, hold on, Ryan.

Let me make some remarks before you start.

Oh, sure.

So first of all, I, you know, sometimes we hear public testimony and sometimes we just

bite our tongues or cringe when we hear certain words used to describe human beings.

I have to tell you, I take offense to the fact that an inference was made to their garbage

meaning I suspect the statement was aimed at synergy in terms of their use and the

people there.

So I do not believe people that are faced with severe acute mental illness challenges

or garbage.

That's what I heard.

So it's a good way not to impress me, I'm speaking for myself.

So secondly, I'm sorry we didn't hear from any of the South Oak Park residents, many of

whom I know very well and I've worked with for many years to do what's right for that

community.

And the reason I have the map over my right shoulder here, and this is a map that I didn't

prepare for this particular hearing.

This is a map that has been in my office for years now.

And it's a map that has shown, that shows the cumulative investments that the county

has made at my direction working with the community for several years, including community development

block grant funds measured in the millions for things like street improvements or better

street lighting.

Certainly massive improvements to Jack Davis Park, the one and only small park that the

community enjoys that we've even added acreage by working to take back a distressed property

to add acreage to that park.

I worked with folks from our social services agencies when our family resource center that

was then located on 4th Avenue in Oak Park was bursting at the seams and they needed

space and they needed a place to serve more people.

It was District 1 who put forth some rare discretionary funding from a tobacco settlement,

tobacco litigation settlement to purchase buildings, some temporary buildings from

Sac Unified School District to move the resource center from 4th Avenue to the Fruit Ridge

Elementary School site.

And that is one of the more active family resource centers that we have of the nine that are

serving the people around that community.

So I'm very proud of doing what I know the community has told me they want and deserve

and I couldn't agree more with them that there is so much more to do.

There's so much more to do to make sure that that community has every opportunity to

thrive and it happens to be an artifact of political geography that is the most populated

square mile of unincorporated residents that I have the good fortune to represent and

work with and that's why in large part there's the ability to focus resources there and

that will continue.

As Mr. Blair knows, I stood in front of I don't know probably 150 to 100 people, I don't

know back in 2013 maybe 14 during National Night Out and I told them how upset I was because

I had spent the afternoon going up and down the streets seeing for myself the fact that

we had so much so many distressed properties that we had so many unattended code enforcement

issues including a massive amount of legal dumping.

So I've spent hours countless hours driving myself during lunch hour driving the streets

calling in 311 issues and I'm not here to pontificate and you know and tell you that I

am the one that's responsible for that.

My office has simply been the conduit for many of the people that have spoken here and

the organizations that they represent most namely South Oak Park Community Association.

So yes we have a lot to do to uplift that community but it certainly has not been ignored.

So I do not want anyone leaving these chambers to thinking that I as the county supervisor

representing that area have somehow put that community on a shelf and not paid attention.

I couldn't tell you how much how many hours that we have had dedicated focus when I say

we it means all my staff.

My colleagues know that I'm a broken record when it comes to that community.

Even earlier this morning we had an update on the use of community development block

grant funds that prepares us each year to start thinking about how we want to aim those

rare federal dollars to communities in our respective districts to improve capital facilities

to improve the availability of public services.

So for me that's going to continue in this very very important square mile of Sacramento

County for me at least.

So I just want to make that clear.

You have the floor.

Thank you.

One thing I just like to do in rebuttal I just like would like to address the matter

before you which is the appeal.

The appeal said that there's an over concentration of these care facilities in this particular especially

in the South Oak Park neighborhood and this zip code.

If you look at this zip code five years ago there were 15 of these type of residential

care facilities in the 95820 zip code.

There are now eight.

So almost half of those have gone away which is a loss of 46 beds in that particular community.

In the county which is interesting in the county almost a third of these type of facilities

have gone away in the last five years.

That's a loss of 1900 over 1900 beds in the county.

We need more of these facilities not fewer.

The appeal also said that Nueva Vista is a bad neighbor.

They talked about a lot of the neighbors in the community are bad neighbors but they

actually provided no evidence at all that Nueva Vista in any time over the last 11 years

has been a bad neighbor.

And then last I want to say they also made the claim in the appeal that Nueva Vista

does not contribute to the community and to the neighborhood.

And I would put into evidence the three pages actually four pages of community contribution

that Nueva Vista alone makes into in the community in South Oak Park and in Oak Park

plus the entire page of residents who actually go out into the community and contribute to

the neighborhood and contribute to the community.

So we believe that with the added conditions that you just have received that I spoke of

earlier the findings in your staff report the amount of evidence that's not included

in the appeal and the anonymous approval of your planning commission that this board

can support this project.

And I'm here for your questions.

Thank you Brian.

Thank you.

Any questions?

We'll start with supervisory.

Thank you chair.

My questions are for planning.

So in reading the staff report I believe it's a mix of zoning of RD5, RD15 and RD20.

And then when I looked at the aerial map to show the exhibit of that zoning it's hard

to decipher what is actually what.

But I think RD5 is the property between the existing facility going over to 47th.

RD15 is the existing parcel that the existing use is on and the RD20 parcel is that which

abuts the, I guess it's the fruit ridge community council property.

Yes.

Yes.

That is my recollection.

That sounds about right?

Yes.

So then you know kind of to my point when I asked Mr. Holloway a question earlier getting