Good morning, everyone.

We will now call to order the Sacramento County Board of Supervisors meeting for Tuesday, February 24th.

Will the clerk please call the roll?

Supervisor Kennedy.

Here.

Supervisor Desmond.

Here.

Supervisor Hume.

Here.

Supervisor Cerna.

Here.

And Chair Rodriguez.

Here.

We have a quorum.

Will the uh clerk please read the Metro statement?

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

It is cable cast on Metro Cable Channel 14, the local government affairs channel on the Comcast and Direct TV Uverse Cable Systems.

It is also live streamed at Metro14Live.sackCounty.gov.

Today's meeting replays Friday, February 27th at 6 o'clock p.m.

on Metro Cable Channel 14.

Once posted, the recording of this meeting can be viewed on demand at YouTube.com forward slash Metro Cable 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, gestures, or other inappropriate behavior, including personal attacks or threats directed towards any meeting participant.

Seating 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 open public forums.

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

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

The chairperson will open public comments for each agenda off agenda item and direct the clerk to call the name of each speaker.

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

If a speaker is unavailable to make comment prior to the closing of public comments, the speaker waives their request to speak, and the clerk will file the speaker request form in the record.

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

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

The remainder of the agenda comments will take place at the conclusion of the timed matters in the afternoon.

As a reminder, rule of procedure 10B allows the chair to establish uniform time limits for people addressing the board in relation to a particular matter.

Such limits may be announced at the beginning of each matter, posted on the agenda, and can include setting specific amount of time devoted to public comment for a particular item, announcing cutoff times for receipt of request to speak forms, reducing the amount of time per speaker or other reasonable and content neutral measures.

You may send written comments by email to Board Clerk at SACCounty.gov.

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

Accommodation.

If you need an accommodation pursuant to the Americans with Disability 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 SAC County.gov.

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

Thank you.

Let us stand for the Pledge of Allegiance.

And to the Republic for which stands one undervisal libertarian justice fraud.

All right.

I have one announcement that item number 15 will be dropped from the calendar from the schedule.

And um are there any other announcements?

Yes, uh, I do have several announcements for our consent calendar here.

If you'd like me to read them now.

Yes, please.

All right.

As you mentioned, item 15 and intro to introduce an ordinance amending chapter 2.75 of the Sacramento County Code related to the Civ Civil Service Commission is being dropped, and we'll need a vote for that.

Also, item 18, which is the uh request to form a new agricultural preserve through a Williamson Act contract on 287 acres in the AG 80 zone in Natomas community.

That item has also been requested to drop by the department through the applicant, and we'll need a vote for that.

Also, item 20.

The uh the board will be acting as the Sacramento County Water Agency, and that item is to adopt an ordinance amending Schedule D of Title II of the Sacramento County Water Agency.

And they waived the full reading and continued from February 10th, 2026.

It was item nine on that agenda.

And those are all the announcements I have.

Okay, great.

Will the clerk please call the next item?

And do we want to quickly take a vote to drop the drop the two items I'll entertain the motion?

I'll move move to drop both items 15 and 18.

So that's a motion by uh Supervisor Cernan.

Who was the second?

Desmond.

Desmond.

Thank you very much.

All right.

Please vote.

All right.

And that uh request to drop those passes unanimously 5-0.

Okay.

Will the clerk please call the next item?

All right.

The first item on our agenda today is presentation of resolution recognizing the Sacramento County Department of Transportation Bridge section for their work on the Clay Station Road Bridge at Browns Creek.

On a section of road uh in my district, uh Clay Station Road, that is a major connector between two other major arterials, Dillard and uh Twin Cities Road.

And they uh did a wonderful job of um dewatering the site of uh first of all, it was supposed to be a minor repair, and when they got into it, the bridge was pretty well rotted away.

Uh it was it was standing on on donut holes of pylons uh rather than solid timber.

And uh and I I hounded them pretty good.

Well, not these guys so much, but the guy sitting up there in the cheap seats.

And uh, you know, and basically it was a major disruption for for folks that live out there for for the you know movement of goods and services, and um and they did an outstanding job.

I just drove over the bridge the other day uh earlier this week, and uh it looks fantastic, it functions well, and it's gonna be there for a long time.

And so what I have here is a resolution recognizing uh the Sacramento County Department of Transportation Bridge section for their work on Clay Station Road Bridge at Browns Creek.

Uh I want to call out uh specifically uh Julia O'Mello for leading this this uh merry band of pranksters.

Uh whereas the Sacramento County Department of Transportation is entrusted with maintaining the safety, reliability, and integrity of the county transportation infrastructure, whereas in May 2025, the Clay Station Road Bridge at Browns Creek was immediately closed.

That's the other thing is that was Caltrans that said this bridge is no longer safe to pass over.

So it was we had to respond to it immediately and and take undertake the work.

Uh over structural concerns requiring urgent and complex emergency repairs, whereas the SAC dot bridge section crews undertook this challenging project under significant time constraints, working well beyond their customary duties to ensure the bridge could safely reopen as quickly as possible.

Whereas the nature of the work, including dewatering operations, stabilizing the bridge structure, constructing false uh bents, and repairing surrounding roadway services required exceptional technical skill, precision teamwork, and commitment, and whereas the successful completion of this project was made possible through the outstanding leadership of Julia Mello, who's been with SACDOT for over 20 years, and whose direction, expertise, and dedication guided the eight-man crew through every phase of the emergency repairs, and whereas the professionalism, perseverance, and above the beyond efforts of the SAC DOT bridge section prevented prolonged disruption for local residents, ensure the continued safety of the traveling public and upheld the county's mission to deliver reliable infrastructure services.

Now, therefore, be it resolved that the Board of Supervisors County of Sacramento State of California hereby recognizes and honors the Sacramento County Department of Transportation for its dedication to public safety and steadfast commitment to the residents of Sacramento County and extends its deepest appreciation of the bridge section crew members and especially to Julio Mello for his exceptional leadership and service.

Thank you.

Um I'd like to thank the staff.

They put in the hard work.

Um I think we did a really great job.

I mean, we're under pressure, and our staff and other management helped us uh push through it.

And thank you for the award or presentation.

Thank you.

Quick picture.

Picture.

Let's turn around.

We'll get a picture facing this way.

Can we get a little bit of close?

Yeah.

Mike, your elbows deep in a brief second.

Thank you guys for appreciation.

All right, next item.

And item number two on our agenda today is presentation of resolution recognizing Folsom High Bulldog football team as 2025 CIF Division 1 A state champions.

Thank you for coming.

Sorry.

Good morning.

So today I am very proud to recognize the Folsom High School Bulldogs football team as a 2025 CIF Division One A State Championships.

So I have a resolution here that the font had to go down to a like a six because there are so many things to recognize here.

But I will summarize it.

This team delivered an extraordinary 14 to 1 season, an undefeated Sierra Foothill League Championship, a CIF SAC San Sac San Joaquin Section Division one title.

A North Health Division won AA regional championship and ultimately captured the CIF division, one AA state championships on December 12th, earning the program six state title and cementing its place among California's most accomplished high school football programs.

Ranked number seven in California and number 33 nationally.

Led the team all season.

When he was injured late in the Nor Cal regional uh game, the Bulldogs demonstrated true resilience.

Junior quarterback Brody Rudniki stepped into the state championship game and delivered six total touchdowns in a commanding 42 to 28 victory.

This championship reflects not only athletic excellence, but discipline, teamwork, and adaptability, and the unwavering support of coaches, families, educators, and the entire Folsom community.

It is my honor to present this resolution, recognizing the Folsom Bulldogs for a historic 2025 season, and for representing Sacramento County with distinction at the local, regional, and state level.

With me here is head coach Paul Doherty and Peter Roombo, who is the head coach of the team, and Peter Ramun, who is the Folsom Cordova Unified School District Director of Athletics.

So I gotta tell you, I'm a big 49er fan.

And for 21 years, we have been on a quest for six.

And you guys did it.

So congratulations.

And um, on behalf of myself and my colleagues, our county staff and the residents of Sacramento County, we congratulate you for an outstanding season and for representing Sacramento County throughout the state.

Would you like to say a B-word?

All right.

So just for example, like I'm the head coach of our third grade team, the junior Pee-Wees, because I got a kid that plays.

And if they're gonna do it the right way, like I'll put my money where my mouth is, and then that goes all the way up to the top, you know, where I kind of got bookends on the program, you know, at the varsey level, but it goes much it goes it goes far beyond that.

You know, with the community, the support, admin, parents, the kids do a ton.

You know, the kids are in school today, they're not missing school to come here.

Um, but uh it's uh it's a whole process all year long, decades at a time now, and we're just uh we're we're appreciative and grateful for the recognition.

Thank you.

All right, Pim.

Just want to thank the uh county on behalf of the school district, the uh students, and the community.

Uh this is obviously a uh takes a village to uh raise the entire group and uh the dedication of the coaching staff.

One of the things that we've been fortunate at Folsom is um having a coaching staff that turns over that were former players who are currently coaching and having that commitment.

And Coach Doughy is too humble to tell you, but he lives and breathes football night and day.

He coaches 12 months out of the year.

I think he takes off Christmas because his wife allows him to, other than that, he is constantly out there coaching up kids, regardless of what program they're in.

And uh, that's a huge dedication to take on.

So thank you for the county.

We love representing Sacramento County when we are off playing against other uh schools across the state and across other uh states, and we appreciate all the support and for your support as well.

Thank you.

And can I invite my colleagues to come down and take a photo with the coach?

All right, well, the clerk please call.

Oh, there's one more presentation that we added, and that is um David Villanueva will announce it.

Thank you, Supervisor Rodriguez.

I just want to take a moment.

Um the board took action a couple of meetings ago, but um today you have an item on your agenda for related to uh SHRA.

So I wanted to take a moment to uh introduce Chris Warren as our new executive director.

She could come up real quick.

So Chris's official day was actually yesterday, which we're incredibly happy to have her on board.

Um, Chris brings with her 25 years of experience in affordable housing and public housing authority leadership.

She served with on the U.S.

Senate housing subcommittee where she's assisted in led public housing legislation.

She's also served as the chief operations officer at the Chicago Housing Authority, executive director at the Miami Dade Housing Authority, the deputy executive director at the Tampa Housing Authority, and most recently, she was the interim chief officer of program and finance administration and chief operations officer at the Oakland Housing Authority.

So we're very fortunate to have Chris join us in her new role and be in her second day.

She's here taking on uh a presentation, or at least be part of the presentation.

So with that, I'll ask if Chris has anything she'd like to add.

I think that says a lot, but I am really honored and thank you for the opportunity to assist the the county and the city and the housing authority team as we move forward over the next um iterative basis to look for um uh to keep the operations moving smoothly and make improvements and enhancements where necessary or where it's um where it makes sense, and just to in enjoy the opportunity to work with you.

So thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you, Chris.

Welcome.

Thank you, Chris.

All right.

Next item, please.

The next item on the agenda is number three.

Public comments relating to matters not on the posted agenda.

And we do have several speakers signed up today.

First being Peter Frederick.

Good morning, Peter.

This board has the same authority to issue proclamations as every city council in this county.

And right now, the same organizations that collected proclamations from your cities are working through every level of California government they can reach.

In 2023, the Hindu American Foundation hired a California regional director and stationed her right here in Sacramento.

And within four months, her team collected proclamations from at least four cities in this county.

Rancho Cordova, Folsom, Citrus Heights, and Sacramento itself.

And organized a 900-person Diwali event in Elk Grove with the mayor in attendance.

HAF's own blog names the organizations that joined her at every ceremony.

HSS, Save International, and others.

HSS is the American wing of India's RSS paramilitary.

Save it international is the RSS service wing.

And HAF is the lobbying arm that converts those proclamations into political power.

That conversion killed SB 509, a bill to turn to train California law enforcement to recognize when a foreign government targets people on American soil.

Endorsed by the California Police Chiefs Association, written after the Department of Justice, indicted an Indian intelligence officer for directing an assassination plot against an American citizen in this country.

Passed both chambers of your state legislature without a single no vote.

And HAF's own statement says they spearheaded a coalition through the governor's office and filled hearing rooms in this Capitol in your county until Governor Newsom vetoed the bill on October 13th.

This is the pipeline.

Proclamations build credibility, credibility builds relationships.

Relationships fill hearing rooms, and hearing rooms produce vetoes of public safety legislation that every law enforcement organization in the state supported.

They collected from your cities, they lobbied in your capital, and if they have not come to this board yet, they will.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And our next speaker.

Our next speaker is Joe Barr.

Good morning, Joe.

Good morning, Supervisors.

My name is Joe Barr, and I'm stepping into the role of executive director at Access Sacramento.

On March 5th, the Sacramento Metropolitan Cable Television Commission may vote to eliminate funding for our PEG organizations.

If that happens, it effectively puts Access Sacramento and SECC out of business and ends nearly 40 years of public access media in the region.

There is no operational necessity that requires a defunding vote on March 5th.

We know cable franchise revenue is declining, and we're actively repositioning Access Sacramento to become a more strategic, more professional, and self-sustaining, most importantly, self-sustaining for the future.

What we have not had is a transparent collaborative process with the Commission to build a realistic transition plan.

There are significant differences between the Commission's financial projections and those developed by Access and SCCC.

That deserves review before irreversal action is taken.

Access Sacramento provides workforce training that feeds the region's creative economy.

We train youth, seniors, and underserved residents in film, television, and podcast production.

Our training has resulted in local residents crewing on one battle after another and other films shot in Sacramento.

And importantly, our platforms allow people's voices to be heard.

Over nearly four decades, thousands of lives have been impacted by the work of Access Sacramento.

And if funding is cut, the services will stop.

So my request this morning is straightforward.

Please use your oversight to ensure that no immediate defunding occurs without a transparent review of the numbers and a defined transition runway.

I'm reaching out to your offices to request brief meetings.

I would really like to discuss both the immediate funding issue and also how Access Sacramento can better serve your constituents moving forward.

And I thank you for your time.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Denise Lipscomb.

Good morning, Denise.

Good morning.

So I'm here with Elders in the community.

Oh, that's nice, thank you.

Um reparations.

Um I want to preference what I have to say by saying lack reparations is a priority.

Um whether it's cut the check or land.

Black reparations is a priority right now.

We um at Elders in the Community, our focus is black land reparations reparations and redress.

We have submitted two LOIs with no response.

And these LOIs are letters of intent to acquire surplus land as black land reparations.

We are here today to put these on public record verbally and physically, and say that we expect a response from this board within the next 10 business days for open negotiations.

Who do I give the letters to?

All right, that's all I have.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you, Denise.

And our next speaker is Ted Samara.

Good morning, Ted.

Good morning.

Good morning, Supervisors.

So I was prepared to speak on an agenda item that you pulled today, so I appreciate that.

But I thought since I'm here, I might as well give my two cents for the two minutes that you're going to allow me.

I have concerns.

And you know, today was going to be one of those firecracker days in which I'm glad we don't have to go there because I got a lot of work to do in my preparations for tomorrow's budget committee hearings at the state.

But we have to work better in a partnership.

I've been demonized by many management folks out there, many in this room.

They mistake my passionate advocacy for roadblocks.

They mistake our advocacy to just I guess to drive a nail into whatever the management is trying to do.

But what they're not recognizing is our advocacy is to improve the lives of your employees.

And in turn, they do what?

Provide services to your constituents.

You know, hiding hiding an agenda item, and I appreciate it being pulled.

And consent matter, and us finding about it in the 11th hour, is not an improvement in those communications in a working relationship.

We're here as labor to improve the lives of our members.

So in turn, they can provide those services to your constituents.

I'm doing my part.

We have many troubled days ahead of us.

You have bad budget years coming up.

And I think we all can raise a hand to that.

And we need to work cooperative.

So that your employees can provide the benefits to those in need, especially in the services area.

With less resources.

And we can't do this if we don't have open communications.

It has to improve.

I put all the branch after all of the branch out there to you all, to your management teams.

And the only way I get meetings half the time is if you initiate it.

And I appreciate when you do that.

So there's my two minutes.

I thank you all, and I work hopefully in a more productive manner with this county as we move forward.

Thank you.

Thank you, Ted.

And we have no additional off agenda speakers.

All right.

It is uh you could just wait 30 seconds.

Oh, there you go.

There we go.

All right, next item.

All right.

Um, actually, we can do our consent calendar items here, which are items four through 33, with the exceptions of number 15 and 18, which have been dropped by the board.

Any items?

Oh, uh Supervisor Cerna.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Uh I just wanted to um publicly uh express our gratitude, uh gratitude on behalf of the county, um, especially our um animal care uh agency.

Uh my colleagues in the public will note item seven is uh the approval uh hopefully of a resolution accepting uh more than $350,000 from the estate of Robert W.

Steger.

Uh this is a uh phenomenal amount of um funding that has been uh uh bequeathed to uh Sacramento County and uh in uh in particular uh for animal uh care services.

So uh I think uh we'd all be remiss if someone didn't uh uh gratuitously thank uh the family and um uh the estate of uh Mr.

Stagger.

Um I know that uh our um director of animal care services is in the audience, and I'm sure that uh this money is gonna be put to uh very good use to continue the mission of animal care services as it relates to this county's um interest in um making sure that all our constituents, even the furry kind uh and the four-legged kind, um uh have what they need to uh thrive here in Sacramento County.

So I just want to put that on the record.

Thank you.

Thank you.

All right.

Well, I will oh supervisor desmond.

Thank you, Madam Chair, and I'll just piggyback off of uh my my colleagues' comments with respect to item number six, uh which is another gift to animal care services to the tune of $19,000 from the uh Illfeld family, Dolly Ilfeld.

And and you know, when I during my briefing yesterday when David let me know that that family is from District 3, we had a discussion about how important it is to acknowledge these gifts, if for no other reason to encourage more of them.

So um but I certainly appreciate uh the the gifts and generosity from the Ilfeld family and certainly from the uh estate of the Steager family as well.

The uh the our our furry constituents desperately need this kind of help.

So thank you if any of you family members are listening.

All right, no further uh requests to speak here.

I will entertain a motion.

Move consent.

Second all right, please vote.

Consent calendar is approved.

50.

All members present.

All right, next item, please.

All right.

The next item on our agenda is item number 34.

This is uh uh tax equity and fiscal responsibility uh responsibility hearing for approval of tax exempt bonds and authorizing the issuance of a sale of county of Sacramento Airport Systems, revenue notes in one or more series, and uh aggregate principal not to exceed 50 million dollars.

Outstanding at any one time.

Good morning, Colin.

Good morning, Chair Rodriguez and board members.

Um I'm Colin Bettis, the county debt officer.

Uh the item before you now is authorizing the airport short-term financing facility not to exceed $50 million.

And this is to meet the long-term growth in passengers at Sacramento International Airport.

The Department of Airports continues to invest in significant capital improvements at multiple facilities, which are included in the airport master plan document approved by the board on February 16th, 2022 to assist in the coordination of the cash flow needs of the Department of Airports.

The Office of Budget and Debt Management issued an RFP for a revolving line of credit, similar to the revolving line of credit that expired in December of last year.

PNC was provided the overall best value within their response and was selected pending confirmation by the board.

The terms are for three years.

This will be variable rate, and we'll have rates that are set based off of the use of the proceeds either on a tax exempt basis or a taxable basis, and we will pay an unutilized fee for any portion that we don't draw upon at uh 0.15 percent.

Key reasons for this uh short-term facility are allow for just in time financing for the exact amount of project expenditures, provides for a lower cost of financing during the construction period, and allows for the timing of long-term fixed rate bonds to be timed to meet the appropriate market conditions.

As part of this approval process, a TEFRA hearing is required for any use of the facility that may be on a tax exempt basis.

And finally, this will not be a credit of the county's general fund.

This concludes my presentation.

We also have Doug McDonald from the Department of Airports uh to respond to any uh project related questions.

And at this time, I ask that you open the public hearing, hear any comments provided upon conclusion, close the public hearing and approve staff's recommended actions within the board report.

Thank you.

Thank you for the presentation, Colin.

Um I will now open the public hearing.

And we have no public speakers signed up for this item.

All right, I will now close the public hearing and entertain a motion.

Move the item.

Second.

Okay, we have a motion and a second.

Please vote.

Item 34 passes unanimously 5-0.

All right, thank you.

Next item, please.

The next item on our agenda is number 35.

And on this item, you will be acting also as the housing authority.

And I would like to note that additional supporting documents were received and distributed this morning, and copies are available for the public in the back of the chamber.

Good morning.

Good morning, madam.

Excuse me.

Good morning, madam chair, members of the board.

My name is Kay Junta.

I'm assistant director of finance at Sacramento Housing Redevelopment Agency.

And today our auditor, Mandy Merchant from Clifton, Larson Allen will be presenting on our 2024 audited financial statements and single audit.

Good morning, Mandy.

Good morning, everyone.

How are we all doing today?

Very well.

Thank you very much.

I'm honored to be presenting today the results of the uh 1231 2024 audit for Sacramento Housing and Redevelopment Development Agency.

If you can go to the next slide.

Um just a little bit about me.

My name is Mandy Merchant.

I am at Pro CLA.

I've been there for about 25 years.

Um I specialize in doing audits of housing authorities across the United States.

So hopefully I bring a lot of um information and history for this agency.

Uh for the agenda today, we're gonna quickly go through the audit process and scope.

We're gonna talk about the results of the audit, including the audit opinions and communications.

Go through some financial statement highlights at the overall agency, and then highlight the ones at the county level.

We'll talk about significant changes and then quickly I'll just let you guys know about some upcoming GASB pronouncements.

So we go to the next slide.

The next slide talks.

Oh, pardon.

Sorry about that.

Thank you about that.

On this slide, just want to elaborate what was the audit scope for this audit for 1231 2024.

The results of our audit include three different audit opinions that we will discuss in further detail.

We have the report on the financial statements.

We have the report on the internal controls over the financial reporting, compliance, and other matters.

We have the report on the internal controls over compliance with major programs.

In addition, there was required governance communication that was released, and we will also go over that in one of our slides.

And then lastly, our deliverable includes submission to the real estate assessment center, which is required for any kind of housing authority, and then the submission to the federal audit clearing house.

All right.

So on this slide, high level, the audit process that we conduct.

Obviously, we're not able to audit everything of the housing authority, but we do do a risk-based approach, which means that we look at the agencies from the internal controls, we look at um you know industry standards, uh, we review their you know, our cash receipts, their disbursements, their payroll, all that kind of information to come up with an audit approach.

Um, our audit approach included ensuring revenue recognition.

Um, the housing agency receives a lot of federal money and state money.

So we do a significant amount of review and testing of those balances to sure that they're accurate and reported timely and in the correct period.

Uh we look at significant estimates, which we'll talk about a little bit later.

Uh there's a lot of debt notes receivables based on the agency giving out a lot of um you know money out to the community uh supporting affordable housing.

We have a significant single audit at this agency that we'll go into detail as part of reviewing the single audit report.

And then last off, the group audit that resets all the uh the related parties that um SHRA has.

Um that includes their discreetly presented component units and their blended component units that are that are shown within their financial reporting entity.

Okay, so let's go over the results.

So the results of the audit opinions.

Um so for the financial statements, we did have an unmodified opinion on the financial statements, but that represents having a clean opinion.

For the federal wards, we did have an unmodified opinion overall, but we did have two modifications to two of the um two of the programs, and we'll talk about that on the next slide.

As for the audit results for from a finding standpoint on the financial statements, we had one material weakness that we'll go into details and no significant deficiencies.

And then on the federal wards, we did have two material weaknesses noted and three significant deficiencies, which we'll talk about.

Okay.

All right, so on the next slide.

All right, so just so everyone knows what programs we tested and which ones resulted in the qualified opinion versus a non-modified opinion.

You can see listed on the screen, there was um six programs tested this past year.

Um, the ones that were qualified as a result of material weaknesses that were issued was the public housing, uh, public and Indian housing program and then the housing voucher program.

All right, so at this point, I'm not sure if um at any point that any of the supervisors have any questions, but I am gonna go through the findings, so just interrupt me if you guys have a question, or we can wait until the end.

Um so the first one up is the the financial close, and these details of these financial um these findings are in that supplemental that you received.

So if you want to go along with me, um I'll just have the details open in case you do have a question.

But this one is on the financial close process, and what that means is that um as part of the audit, you know, we come in, request a trial balance, and as a result of our audit procedures, we did have um audit adjustments that were required to ensure that the you know the the this report you're looking at is not misstated.

Um so if you look at the page on the 2024-001, you can see a listing out of the different audit adjustments that we had that were required as part of the audit to ensure the financial numbers were correctly reported as part of 1231 2024.

Okay, so and the second finding, uh the second finding goes into the housing choice voucher program, and this one um uh this is one of the ones that resulted as you can see was a material weakness.

Um, this applies to the county.

So we were reviewed as part of looking at eligibility determination.

We reviewed 60 files and did note that 23 out of 60, the annual certifications were just not done timely.

Um they were done, they just weren't done within the required 12-month period.

Um, and that really kind of kind of still kind of stems from the catch-up that's being done over the years to get these back to where they need to be.

Okay.

2024 does 003.

Again, this relates to county and the housing choice voucher program.

And this is the housing quality standards failed inspections.

So this finding is that we looked at 40 files or 40 inspections that were failed during the year.

And out of the 40 we looked at, we just noted one where the file was not properly reinspected on a timely manner.

So when you have a failed inspection, you have a requirement to reinspect it within 24 hours if it's light threatening or 30 days, and that was not done timely.

Okay, on 2024 does 004.

Another one related to the housing choice voucher program.

Again, this is another small one, just one out of 60 files where the annual inspection had not been completed since November 2022.

Okay, so then switching over to the public housing program for 2024 does 005.

Um this was the material weakness that led to a qualification of this program for this year.

So as you can see here, um we do test um 40 files and split them between city and county as we're looking through these.

So you can see on here for the um for the county, we did note seven out of um the 40 that we reviewed that the annual certification was not completed um on an annual basis.

So again, that was a um a timeliness on that certification.

Um in addition, there's one instance where the annual certification was not completed in 2024.

Um the last one was in 2022, so that was past that annual um timeline.

Okay, and so then the last one, um, which is this is a joint one between with with city and county, is that the emergency services grant.

So this one, um, there is a requirement in this ES as it's referred to the ESG program, the ESG program that um when you are giving out money to sub-recipients, you're supposed to disperse that money within 30 days of receiving that money in the door.

Um, and we did note that they were out of the 299 that we reviewed that 10 of them were not within that 30-day requirement.

So I just said a lot.

Does anyone have any questions on any of this?

I know the SHRA team is here in case anyone has any details or specifics they would like to know.

There are no questions in the queue right now, Mandy.

Okay.

Oh, yes, pass supervisor here.

Sure, I'll take the opportunity just as we pause here.

So in these findings, um, you know, obviously there is a distinction between controls and processes that that weren't followed and put into place versus actual malfeasance.

And and what in my reading of this, things weren't done as well as they should have been, but it wasn't necessarily a misrepresentation or anything uh arising to the level of of fraudulent behavior.

Correct.

Okay.

We didn't we nothing of that nature came to our this was just just you know lateness, you know, just this timeliness is what we saw.

Okay, thank you.

You noticed there was nothing about like computation, which is got you know, nothing in the eligibility or anything that something was miscalculated.

It was just really you know the timeliness of it being done.

So okay, so this next this next slide just kind of is an overall communication um regarding the the audit.

Um, the left-hand side, a couple of things I just want to like highlight is this just you know, overall, there was no changes in our plan scope.

So, you know, we planned the audit and we were able to execute it.

We didn't have to double back or change anything up, nothing came to our attention that made us have to rethink how we were doing this audit.

So that's good.

Uh there was some new um implementations of GASBES this year.

Um, we'll talk about that on another slide, but GASBY 101, which was related to the compensated absences.

Um, there was no significant difficulties, no disagreement management, and no management consultations with other accounting firms that we were aware of.

Um, just so everyone knows, as I mentioned earlier about estimates, um, there is a lot of estimates within these financial statements, the biggest ones being the other post-employment benefits and then the pension.

Obviously, that's determined by other actuaries out there.

There are some awesome allowances, very small amount of allowances on receivables that didn't raise toll level to um a materiality.

And then just on the other side, um, obviously this year there was we did have some reissuance, we had some prior period adjustments that were noted um in the financial statements.

Um we did have significant amount of adjusting journal entries, but I would like to say that this is a significant improvement from prior years.

Um we've had in the last year we had about 95 entries to get to where we need it to be.

So this is a big improvement for the agency.

Um we had four uncorrected misstatements, just where we came across adjustments that we ended up not making.

They were just of an immaterial nature related to the 101 related to the council absences, um, the pension calculations, some immaterial prior period adjustments and created interest.

Um, I'd also like to highlight that looking back, um, you know, we've been working with the agency since 20.

Oh no, how do we wait in my notes?

Give me one second.

Oh we've been working with the agencies since 2018, and um we are on a very big decline of the findings.

So we're seeing some progress in the direction that I think is very important for the supervisors to know that everything is kind of coming together the right people, you know, the training, all that is paying off.

So this year we're getting ready to start the 2025 audit soon.

So have very high hopes that we're gonna see this diminish even more this year.

So the next couple slides.

I'm going to kind of go through these at a high level, but this was just for um for the supervisor's information.

It's very high level, just what was going on at the agency during the year.

So these first two slides are really at the SHRA level.

Um so this is just kind of going into the increases and decreases, and the really the big themes this year was um the COVID money was kind of coming to a close.

Um there was a lot of other money coming in the door, so having some significant, you know, um receivables coming in of amounts coming, you know, new amounts being spent out.

Um, new loans going out the door, um, RBP, Howe Avenue, the Twin Rivers, San Juan Mutual.

So a lot of money going out the door for new developments, so very exciting times overall for the agency.

Um, you know, on this unearned revenue, that is money that they were holding until um there was you know uh projects to be spent on, so about 17.2 million dollars of that ERA and mental health services money was spent during the year.

Um, so just overall good things kind of happening at the agency from changes.

Um the next slide, kind of looking at the the income statement.

The biggest thing you kind of see here is a big increase in the federal and state local government money that's very consistent across the industry, the housing um choice voucher program.

Um, you know, is at the funding level, there was a big increase, about 20 million dollars of the amount of you know assistance that was given out to the local community for vouchers.

Um that is you know, something to do with like the increase in lease subs and then also the increase in the um the rents that are out there.

So one thing to keep in mind.

Um you will see on the slide to the decrease about eight million dollar with that that you know, the COVID money um diminishing, which also kind of played in uh part to the decrease in the expenses that you see.

So last up, just want to make a note the large gain on sale of capital assets, just so you all know there was a big sale last year of the RVP group that was a big new low-income housing tax credit that was sold last year that went into operations this year.

Okay, so I'm gonna skip the next two.

This is related to city.

Okay.

So just going over to counting here, again, kind of like the same themes going on as we kind of talked about.

Um, there was some decrease in the current assets.

Um that was related to um additional funding going out.

The door cash was going out to door for the home CDBC and C CFP money as we wait for the accounts receivable to come in.

Just so you guys know, um, this presentation, like these numbers are reflective of what is submitted into um HUD.

So what we submit into HUD includes um all of your programs.

It does include all the operations of home and CDBG, which isn't required to be reported to them in their their online system.

Um couple things you see down at the bottom, just talking again about the ERA program decreasing.

Um, and there has been a decrease in the pension OPEP, which is good.

You know what I mean?

That that that is being funded, so there's less of a liability out there.

Okay, and then last up here, just showing here, you can see that huge increase in the federal grants uh with the amount of money coming in for the housing choice voucher program, the emergency housing voucher, and the shelter plus care money coming in, that 35 million dollar increase.

Um, that 19 million dollar decrease, that is that ERA money um going out the door since that the program is sunsetting.

And then down below in the expenses, you can see the housing assistance payments is really the big driver um of the of the financials and that increase that happened this year.

Any questions?

No questions in the queue, Mandy.

Okay, okay.

Um, and it's up to you all.

You know, the new GASB standards coming out.

I don't know if the whole room wants to learn about exciting auditing information, but just a couple things coming out.

These are good slides if anyone wants to look at them later.

This, you know, 100 was implemented during the year.

It's just a change, and if you have any misstatements or corrections that that occur that occurred for us.

Uh the compensated absences, again, that's just reflecting vacation sick PTO, just properly recording it on the books now.

It was not really consistently done across all industries.

So this came out and this was implemented.

One second, Nandy.

Supervisor Hume.

Oh, sorry.

Yeah, thank you, Chair.

No, my apologies.

I was trying to look to see if I could find the information elsewhere.

On one of those financial statements, was that being reported in thousands?

Yes.

Okay.

Thank you.

You're welcome.

Okay.

So coming this year for the agency for 1231 2012 2025, there is some additional requirements or for risk disclosures that we will have to elaborate.

The best thing I would say about this is you know, there was going to be some sort of decrease in the federal funding.

You know, we had a little bit of hiccups, you know, late last year.

We thought maybe HUD money was gonna be, you know, dwindling down.

Um so that's where something we would um insert a new disclosure regarding that.

Um GASB 103 is probably the biggest impact that we're gonna see to you know, even to the county um and to the housing authority is just the financial reporting is just changing.

So the management discussion analysis, they're looking for uh more information, um, more consistency across the industry.

There's gonna be a new definition for unusual and infrequent items.

Um so when you look at that income statement, it's gonna look different than it has in prior years, especially for proprietary funds, which um SHRA is a proprietary fund.

So the um subsidies that are being received from HUD are gonna appear in a different spot um than they have in the prior year.

Um, and then the last two don't impact SHRA, but just again, something to look forward to for everyone.

And then this one is just a change in disclosures of capital assets.

Have not seen any kind of change like this in many years from the GASP, but capital assets just because there's so many new, you know, all the new leased assets and the software, just kind of giving more clarity out there to the readers so that when somebody you know and the supervisors can look at the capital assets and understand what's going on.

And then lastly, is just an implementation guide.

This actually makes all the accountants uh us auditors' lives easier, provides this clarity on a lot of things that have been happening over the years, so it'll be also good for the accountants within all the finance departments to be able to have more clarification.

So that is all I have to say.

But I know that was a lot of information, so I don't know if anyone has any questions or if it's something I know you guys have a full agenda.

Um anything I can answer at a later time.

Thank you, Mandy.

That was very informative, a lot of really good details.

Um, are there any requests to speak on this item?

There are zero requests to speak on this item.

Thank you, Mandy.

Okay, this is receive and file, so we will move on.

Uh next item, please.

Oh Madam Chair.

Yes, Supervisor Hume.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And I apologize, I don't want to belabor the issue any longer because we do have a full agenda, but I just want to say that that this audit to me is like going in for a smog check.

And so it's making sure that you're still meeting the standards as required by the government to operate your car on the road.

The audit that we're asking for for Ms.

Warren to perform is more like uh you know, a hundred thousand mile service where they go in and they check the fluids, they make sure the air pressure and the tires are correct so that you get better gas mileage, and so it's way more in-depth um from these processes and controls.

And I'm just glad to hear that the trend is going downwards for findings, and that's really what we're hoping to do is to lift that hood, get in there, and actually get the hands dirty a little bit and make sure all the belts are tight and and uh things are firing the way that they should be.

So thank you.

Thank you, Supervisor Hume.

All right, next item, please.

The next item on our agenda is number 36 approval of the 2026 neighborhood traffic management program, traffic plans, and the board is acting once again as only the board of supervisors on this matter.

Thank you.

All right, ready?

Yes.

All right, good morning, Chair Rodriguez and board members.

Thank you for your time today.

My name is Bobby Siddu.

I work in the traffic engineering section at DOT, Department of Transportation.

Uh bear with me as I return from paternity leave just last week.

Congratulations.

Today I'm here to request the board to consider the approval of the recommended 2026 NTMP traffic plan and direct DOT to proceed with the implementation of the project.

Let's take a step back.

So NTMP stands for Neighborhood Traffic Management Program, and this started back in 2006, so 20 years ago.

And this is a resident-driven program, which was initiated to assess the speeding issues occurring on residential and minor streets within the county.

NTMP offers a variety of traffic calming devices such as speed bumps and speed tables with associated advisory speed limit signs based on the characteristics of the roadway.

A little bit of background.

So in 2025, the board approved funding for 17 projects along 17 streets.

So after evaluation and developing proposed traffic plans, uh these are sent to all the residents within that segment, and there's a minimum threshold for 50% response rate from the residents in that segment.

Projects that do not have a support rate that have a support rate less than 65% are not qualified for further consideration.

And projects with a support rate between 65 and 75% support rate are have to be presented to the board for approval, which is why I'm here today.

And projects with a support rate greater than 75% may be constructed without further board approval unless a request for board hearing has been filed, which is the second reason why I'm here today.

And Bobby, can you just explain what how would a project get support rate?

Support rate, right?

So after a petition is so a lead petitioner will first submit a 311 or contact DOT to get that process started.

And once they move to the next step and we evaluate the segment, uh the next steps are to for us to develop a traffic plan.

So where are we going to place the speed bump?

You know, with conflicting driveways, things like that, we have to find the perfect spot for that speed bump.

And then that traffic plan is sent to all the residents on that street.

And with it's basically a little ballot that gets sent out in the mail.

And so the residents are able to anonymously basically uh, you know, mark whether they approve or oppose the traffic plan and whether they agree to have it in front of their property as well.

That's usually the biggest hurdle sometimes.

And so once we have 50% response rate from the residents, we are then we look at that support rate.

So if that's above 75 percent from all those residents that did respond, meeting that minimum 50 percent response rate, we can move forward with the project.

Okay.

Yeah.

Thank you.

No problem.

Now the current project status, so 14 of those uh projects received greater than 75 percent support rate uh and meeting that minimum 50 percent respon response rate.

One project received between 65 and 75 percent, that was California Avenue in District 3.

And one project received greater than 75 percent support rate, but there was a request for a public hearing, which was 20th Street in District 4.

And Jacob Lane, unfortunately, we were unable to reach uh a consensus with the residents uh on a device location.

Uh this is in district three.

So a little background on that one.

Jacob Lane, this is south of American River Drive.

Uh the lead petitioner, actually, the initial resident who requested the speed bumps, uh, moved away, but we still continued forward with our evaluation and developing the traffic plan.

And so we sent out our proposed traffic plan, and after a few attempts of staff revising the traffic plan, relocating where the potential bump could be moved.

Um, residents were unable to come to a consensus on the placement of the bump.

Uh, but we are open to re-evaluating and coordinating with the residents in the future to find a resolution if they do want a speed bump uh on Jacob Lane.

One moment.

Um Bobby, Supervisor Desmond.

Thank you, Bobby.

Thank you for calling that out specifically about Jacob Lane.

I did have a conversation with both Ron Vicari and Lupe yesterday about this because I was hit up by several neighbors on there on Jacob Lane.

It's the the part of Jacob Lane south of American River Drive.

And um I I've been told that really the the biggest opposition comes from someone who's actually uh an out-of-town landlord and he rents on that street, um, is not directly involved, but I do appreciate DOT's efforts to uh or overture to the neighbors to sit down and try to build consensus as to the location, and I just want to commit to being a part of those discussions.

Uh I'm looking at Lupe right now.

I had a few conversations with neighbors last night.

So thank you.

Sounds good.

And so back to the recommended projects.

So these are the two projects that required board approval to move forward.

Let's start with California Avenue, which is between Fair Oaks Boulevard and Sutter Avenue.

It met the minimum response rate, and the support rate was at 71%, so just below that 75% threshold.

And the project which a hearing was requested was on 20th Street between Elkhorn Boulevard and Q Street.

This met the minimum response rate and had a higher support rate of 83%, but they requested a hearing.

So let's start with California Avenue.

Outreach consisted of uh reaching out to 19 properties along this segment.

Uh there's a traffic signal at Fair Oaks Boulevard, and there's an always stop at Sutter Avenue to the south.

Uh Carmichael Elementary is located on the west, and we coordinated with with the principal of the school there.

Uh this speed table is proposed uh near the middle of this segment, uh near the school crossing.

So that will help improve the safety there.

And next one and the next traffic plan is on 20th street.

The outreach consisted of reaching out to 24 properties along this segment.

Uh this is a much longer segment, about 2600 uh feet long.

So there are three speed tables proposed here.

And and this is more of a rural residential street.

Uh the speed limit is 35 miles per hour on this segment.

Um so in conclusion, uh DOT staff recommends the approval of California Avenue and 20th Street traffic plans and for the board to direct uh DOT staff to proceed with the implementation uh of this projects.

Uh I'm here to address any further questions you may have.

And I'm joined here today by the project manager, Noel Pacheco and my supervisors.

Uh thank you again for your time.

Bobby, I do have I I have a question.

So, you know, the state of California is under major distress when it comes to traffic, and it's not one specific area, it's actually seems like it's all of California.

And residents are always requesting speed bumps to be installed because they think the speed bumps in their areas will slow down traffic, which it will.

How do you handle so many like requests that come in where residents are saying that their neighborhoods are impacted from high traffic areas, people driving fast, et cetera.

Right.

So just to go back on the first point of when this project or program was initiated.

We we like to put it back on the residents.

So you know, all the residents can submit their requests and we evaluate and we try to include as many as we can.

So this is a annual project that we try to do every year.

So we actually, if if there's any residents that want to submit additional requests for 2027, they can do that.

Uh we're looking for a few extra streets.

Um I know sometimes if there's speed bumps that are installed on one street, then they get pushed to the next street, and then that street wants to submit a petition.

Um, but you know, we're open to working with with the residents, and we we basically put it on the residents.

If they don't want it on their street, we don't want to push that on them either.

You know, so um we welcome all requests for residential and minor collector streets.

All right, great.

Supervisor Desmond.

Thank you.

And thank you for the presentation, and thank you for the program.

I think it's actually a pretty it's a pretty well done uh program, and I like the the thresholds that we've established.

I think it works pretty well and it's pretty responsive, but uh it it's a it's incumbent upon us to make sure we educate the the residents about it.

Um and I'm happy to move approval of the uh of staff's recommendation.

Second.

I have one more request uh request to speak.

Supervisor Hume.

Thank you.

Uh given there's a motion on the floor, I won't belabor the issue, but I just wanted to say that this in some cases is uh an exercise in managing expectations because neighbors uh submit the requests and then their other neighbors don't want to see it happen.

And in some cases, um uh public safety gets involved as far as response times and and and kills these proposed projects.

And then in some cases a case of uh careful what you wish for because once those speed bumps or tables get put into place, then people speed up, then they slam on the brakes, they go over the bump, then they hit on the accelerator, and and it actually creates more of an issue than than what it solved.

So I appreciate the work that you're doing, and and that it's not always an easy task.

All right, we have a motion and a second on the floor.

Please vote.

That motion passes.

Uh 5-0 with all members present.

Thank you.

Next item, please.

The next item on our agenda is the appeal of the planning commission's approval of a tentative subdivision map and redesign for a property located at 7948 Sunset Avenue.

Environmental documents exempt.

Good morning.

Good morning, Kimber.

Morning, Supervisors.

Kimber, while the presentation is getting brought up, I'll introduce myself.

Kimber Gutierrez, principal planner with planning and environmental review.

I'm presenting this pro the appeal, the Sunset Avenue Tentative Subdivision Map Appeal.

While I'm still waiting, I'll give a shout out to Irving Huerta, who's our associate planner who processed the project up to this point.

Be just one more second, that's the first one.

No problem.

All right.

I'm just gonna jump right in.

Um the project is located approximately 133 feet east of the intersection of Sunset Avenue and Sunrise Boulevard in the Fair Oaks community.

The project site is currently developed with an existing home fronting Sunset Avenue and has numerous trees on site.

The project site is zoned RD5.

The project is bound by an office building and vacant uh business professional office zoned property to the west, single family residential to the east, north, and south.

I also want to bring attention to the surrounding public street network.

The image on the right shows that there is one parcel between the project site and Sunrise Boulevard, so the business BP zoned property.

So putting it pretty close to that intersection.

Um the image on the left, bottom left shows the project site bound by Sunset Avenue to the north as well as two dead-end streets along the east property line, which is Shrewsbury Avenue and Glenbar Way.

I also wanted to point out the street to the south, which is a little bit hard to see on these exhibits, um, but it's to the south here.

That is Lago Dacoma Way, which dead ends at the south adjacent property.

Uccording to Sacramento County Records, there are no previous planning entitlements associated with the project site.

Historical aerial imagery shows that the property you was used as an olive orchard um dating to the early 1930s with surrounding development starting in the 1960s.

Staff reviewed recent code enforcement violations violations and concluded that there are no active cases.

Before I go over the proposed map, um, the applicant did participate in a pre-application meeting prior to submitting a formal application in 2022.

There were several alternative designs discussed, which are shown on this slide on the right.

Um, and they included various terminations of the existing public streets.

All alternative designs were not pursued based on lack of connectivity to the existing street network and concerns over lock compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood.

More specifically, the Sacramento County improvement standards do not permit public streets ending in anything but a full cul de sac, and county policies favor street and neighborhood connectivity over cul-de-sacks as well.

So that brings us to the proposed tentative subdivision map.

Um lot sizes range between 5,337 square feet and 8,038 square feet, with the remainder retaining the existing single family residence at 16,768 square feet.

One moment, Kimber.

Supervisor Desmond.

No problem.

You mentioned the the standards for um dissuading uh uh a cul de sac in favor of more connectivity.

Correct.

In terms of this area in particular, though, what it is the proposed connection between um the two streets.

Is that the kind of connectivity that is consistent with our policy?

Yes.

Okay.

Because I I could I can imagine connectivity to larger streets, but connect connectivity to smaller streets.

We're looking at connectivity throughout all neighborhoods and all surrounding streets.

Umly for continuing flow of vehicles, also pedestrian connections.

It allows people to kind of circulate a little bit more easily through the neighborhood.

Um I'll also note that during the alternatives when they were reviewing alternatives, some of the proposals were hammerhead turnarounds or dead-end streets because having the two cul-de-sacs was going to eat up quite a bit of property.

Um the site itself is pretty narrow to accommodate those large cul-de-sac designs.

Um so that's also what also pushed the project to provide that connection.

And that's also I think those hammerhead designs are not favored by the fire department as well, if I'm not mistaken.

They are okay for private streets, but for public streets we require cul-de-sacs.

Yeah.

Okay.

While we on the tentative subdivision map, building envelopes and their setbacks are depicted basically for conceptual purposes.

There are there is no development currently proposed with the tentative subdivision map.

The subdivision is proposed to be accessed via a new 40-foot wide public street connecting Shrewsbury Avenue and Glen Bar Way.

The remainder lot would continue to get access from Sunset Avenue from the existing driveway that serves the existing single family residents.

The site will be required to construct several on-site improvements and record associated easements to adequately serve the proposed lots.

Class A public street improvements and street lights will are to be constructed pursuant to improvement standards and to the satisfaction of our county engineering site improvements and permitting section.

It should be noted that county engineering is not requiring the connect the construction of off-site improvements for properties located adjacent to Shrewsbury and Glen Bar Way.

My understanding is that the applicant did reach out to the neighbors who are directly adjacent to that to offer to construct those improvements.

However, the neighbors rejected uh that offer.

Um the Department of Transportation provided a condition requiring notice be placed on the final map that the remainder lot shall construct and install public street frontage improvements along Sunset Avenue upon issuance of any building permit on the remainder lot.

And then lastly, each new parcel is conditioned to be connected to public water and public sewer.

I lied.

This is the last thing.

Based on the ARBARS report, provided there are a total of 135 trees on site.

Um 21 of those trees are native oak trees.

The removal of 125 trees is proposed with this request, and the project proposes removal of 19 native oak trees, five of which are in fair or better condition, and the removal of those trees do trigger and require mitigation.

Um tree removal would be accommodated, um would accommodate the proposed infrastructure, including the roadway and drainage easements, as well as the residential footprints.

So that brings us to environmental review for the project.

The project was found to be statutorily exempt from CEQA pursuant to guide CEQA guidelines section 15183A, as well as public resources code section 21083.

Under the public resources code section, projects which are consistent with the development density established by zoning, community plan, and or general plan policies for which an EIR has been certified, shall not require additional environmental review, except as might be necessary to examine whether there are project specific significant effects which are peculiar peculiar.

Peculiar?

I struggled when I was practicing this work yesterday to the project site or project or its site, which meets the um CQ guidelines and public resources code.

Uh therefore the project was found to be exempt.

I do also want to note that a consistency analysis was prepared to demonstrate how the project meets the CEQA guideline criteria.

Um through this analysis, we did identify mitigation relative to nesting bird surveys, native tree protection and removal, non-native tree removal, and tier one best management practices related to greenhouse gas emissions.

Um that is to demonstrate consistency with the general plan policies.

And so a mitigation monitoring and reporting program has been prepared for the project to ensure compliance with those mitigation measures.

For advisory recommendations, the project was reviewed by the DRAC on May 9th of 2024.

The DRAC is in support of the subdivision design and connectivity and appreciated the applicant's work on making the subdivision compatible with the surrounding neighborhood.

However, DRAC had some concerns with the extensive tree removal, which resulted in two conditions, which is conditions eight and nine, which require subsequent non-discretionary design review for evaluation of future building footprints and potential tree impacts.

So the thought is that they could potentially save some additional trees on the site.

The Fair Oak CPAC met on April 3rd of 2024 to hear and consider this project.

During public comment, we had 19 members of the public speak in opposition to the proposed request.

Statements of opposition opposition included concerns about increased traffic, removal of visual and sound buffer from Sunrise Boulevard through tree removal and grading, small lot sizes, overflow parking onto adjacent neighbor frontages, dust control during construction, connection of Lago Tacoma Way to the south, safety and future improvements imposed on adjacent property owners.

Wait a moment, Kimber.

Supervisor Sarna.

Thank you, Chair.

A few questions uh relative to this slide.

Uh start with um some of what you just uh listed, Kimber, in terms of the CPAC's opposition or what they heard, I should say, from the public at the CPAC meeting.

Uh I'm curious about um what you've put here in the bullet point list, small lot sizes.

Um can you recall um I'm asking you to kind of just share anecdotally what you recall.

What in particular was the objection to small lot sizes?

Just they're small, and then someone walks away from the podium.

Or what or is there a little more to it than that?

I do think there's a little bit more there is more to that.

Um so the and I did a little bit of background research on the surrounding area.

So if we look I don't know the best one here.

Probably here.

So if you look at the other homes that are developed on Shrewsbury Avenue and Glen Bar Way, and it I believe the original subdivision was called Highland Hills.

Um all of those lots are around 10,000 plus square feet each.

Um so the that particular subdivision was done in 1960.

Um I did look back.

The zoning at the time these were developed was R1B, which has similar lot size requirements to the current RD5 zoning, which is minimum 5,200 square feet.

So those homes were built exceeding the minimum requirement.

The homes that are proposed are meeting the minimum requirement of 5,200 square feet, but I think the concern from the neighbors is that it doesn't necessarily match or is reflective of what is existing in the neighborhood.

Thank you.

That's important to um distinguish because when I see small lot sizes, I just don't know what that I don't know really the context of that.

So it's it's a sounds like it was a concern expressed about um what is perceived to be uh inconsistent um lot sizes just relative to what's been there since 1960 um relative to the neighboring site.

Um thank you for that explanation.

The other question I had was a process question.

So I want to understand this correctly.

The um all of our CPACs have the ability to uh an appeal to appeal a planning commission decision, correct?

Yes.

And so when a CPAC does that or chooses to do that, they I assume they have to agend, do they have to agendize that action?

Yes.

Um we there's two different ways that it has been occurring.

One is that when they do choose to recommend denial, they have the option right then and there to pre-authorize the appeal after they do that action.

Otherwise, if that does not occur, they bring it back to a they bring it back to a later meeting.

Um I'm not so much concerned about that that nuance, but um I am interested to understand uh because this board has heard from members of the public who absent a CPAC decision to appeal have chosen to appeal it themselves, which I believe comes with fairly significant cost uh and it's a cost-saving measure to the county to process that appeal, and I believe it's somewhere in the neighborhood of $4,000 to $5,000.

Correct.

Okay.

But when a C when a CPAC decides to do it by formal vote, either way, as a follow-up to considering uh a project and voting um voting to uh oppose it.

Um there's no cost to the CPAC, correct?

There's no there's no one bears the cost except I guess the county do, yes, uh for processing the the this what would be basically the same action as if an individual brought it forward, right?

Correct.

Okay.

That's good to note.

Um I may have some more process follow-up questions.

Um I'm not sure how far you are through your slide deck, but uh that helps me.

So thank you.

Okay.

Can I just elaborate on that, Kimber, because Supervisor Cerna and I were on the same page, and I did reach out to you um you and Todd and asked, because I thought that was a little peculiar that CPACs can appeal, but yet uh at no charge, but then residents from neighborhoods um can appeal and have to pay the have to pay the the cost.

However, CPAC members are actually um community members and and neighbors.

So I did ask Todd how many appeals we've had in the last couple of years, and there has been four.

And two have been appealed and um and uh successful.

Successfully appealed, but they were cell towers.

Correct.

Correct.

So it was interesting data.

I and I thought, oh, I'm just not I'm not gonna go down that path of trying to you know charge CPACs for the cost that other residents would have, but it's yeah, so I think the other distinction is that for the CPAC to appeal, they do have to state a community-wide interest, whereas an individual who's appealing does not necessarily have to state the community-wide interest piece.

That I'm sorry, through the chair.

Uh so that last piece that you just mentioned, Kimber, that's in our code.

That's in our zoning code.

Yeah.

All right.

Um so going back to the CPAC, the CPAC did ultimately vote to recommend the planning commission deny the requested entitlements and provided several recommendations.

Um this included restricting connection of Lago Tacoma Way, um, pursuing revised designs involving two cul-de-sacks, um, ensuring that the proposed lots provide on-street parking for additional vehicles, um, evaluating better land uses for the property, conducting additional environmental studies, including noise and traffic, um, as well as some other um requ some other recommendations in terms of the CEQA document.

Um the staff did consider the CPAC's recommendations.

Um specific responses to those are in the planning commission report, which is attachment seven.

Um should the board like me to provide more specifics after my formal presentation, I'm happy to do so.

The project was heard by the planning commission on August 25th, 2025.

Um following staff's presentation of the proposed project, commissioners had several initial questions regarding tree mitigation surrounding area lot sizes versus the allowed lot sizes and public noticing requirements.

We did have a total of 12 um public commenters who spoke in opposition to the project, including concerns on traffic generation, tree removal, neighborhood compatibility, connection to the streets, parking in the neighborhood, and safety issues with the single outlet to the neighborhood.

Um following public comments, the planning commission highlighted their concerns over outreach by the applicant to the neighbors, but also indicated that the project was meeting development standards for RD5 zoning.

And following deliberation, they did vote to approve the project on a three yes zero no to absent vote.

Um so for the appeal, the um Farroaks CPAC met on September 3rd, 2025 to pre-authorize the community-wide interest appeal.

Thereafter, on September 4th, the Farrock CPAC chair did file an appeal.

The um the CPAC chair did provide a justification justification statement, which is on the screen.

Um the community-wide specific impacts noted were noise, increased traffic and speeding, lack of adequate parking, and a community-wide concern regarding consistency of lot sizes and new subdivisions constructed in existing neighborhoods.

Um I do have a a point-by-point um discussion for each of the cons impacts um analyze if the board would like me to do that, or I can move on to staff's recommendation.

Um I would like to hear the details.

Yeah.

Okay, so starting with noise, um, given the location of the project site and project scope, uh, noise study was required.

Residential uses are not considered significant noise-generating uses, and the proposed seven-lot split would not generate enough traffic to result in increased traffic noise in the area.

Um existing traffic noise on newly constructed homes is not a concern as new homes would be located behind the remainder lot containing the existing home and shield from traffic noise on Sunset Avenue.

Uh for traffic, the Department of Transportation determined the project did not generate enough trips to trigger a local transportation analysis or a vehicle miles traveled analysis.

And in total, the proposed project would generate 99 daily trips.

To trigger a VMT, a project would need to generate over 237 daily trips, and to trigger an LTA, the project would need to generate over a thousand daily trips.

The proposed project is not anticipated to result in a significant increase of traffic.

The concerns about connection of Shrewsbury Avenue and Glen Bar Way indicate that there would be an increase in traffic or potential drivers in the area would use the connected street network as a shortcut to sunrise.

However, the proposed connection would not have any outlet to Sunrise Boulevard, and the connection would not result in an outlet to Sunset Avenue either.

Um there was a concern about speeding.

Um staff cannot control speeding by individual drivers, um, but that is something that could be we just had a presentation about um traffic control devices, so that's something that could be pursued in the future.

For parking, single family homes require two spaces per home.

Assuming future homes include garages, each lot would likely have up to four spaces for parking on site.

Additionally, since the connection would be a public street, uh, on street parking will be allowed on the new connection.

One moment, Kimber.

Supervisor Desmond.

Thank you.

And and and uh I want to ask you about the sunset, but uh thanks for clarifying the the parking.

Did they give any indications specifically?

I mean, that were they provided the this information about the parking spaces per residential dwelling there, and was there a response?

I'm just I'm just curious because that I'm I'm satisfied with that response that you just gave with respect to parking.

What were the concerns?

Um I mean we we did include it in our planning commission report um and that was something that was presented at the planning commission.

I believe at one point we did also have the applicant provide an exhibit that showed potential driveway locations and spaces on the street to show that it can accommodate parking.

Um also given that the what side would that be east side of the connection would not have any homes or driveways there, that would all also accommodate on street parking.

Because I imagine the concern, yeah, the part the cars would parking would bleed into the street and other neighborhoods.

And uh, and going back to the sunset, and I think I appreciate my colleagues indulging me here with these some of these questions.

Um I had a discussion with uh our our DOT director about access to Sunset.

Can you explain to me why uh in our according to our transportation standards, that was not something that we would allow?

Yes, I have my notes on that.

Um so there's kind of three things to note.

Uh the connection to Sunset would not meet objective spacing standards.

So DOT would not support an exception to that as providing full access so close to the intersection, the future four-lane road, it wouldn't be safe given how close Sunset the project site is to Sunrise Boulevard and Sunset Avenue intersection.

So we do have spacing requirements there.

Um the remainder parcel also precludes that connection to Sunset Avenue, and we cannot condition the subdivision map to connect to Sunset Avenue for the rest of the lots.

Um also um I believe the only other point was that we we are not anticipating the addition of seven homes to create or exasperate traffic issues on Shrewsbury Avenue or Glen Bar Way either.

Okay, I just comment, you know.

I I do understand there are some traffic safety implications.

Certainly, people if you all of a sudden have a lot more cars trying to pull out onto Sunset in such close proximity.

Where is that remainder lot?

I because I we I I drove out there, there's that remainder lot is currently served by a driveway right off of Sunset, correct?

Correct.

And where is that driveway in relation to where your that little dot is?

I believe Is it is it kind of the east side of the of the property, Kimber?

It's a lot, I think it's it's right in the middle actually.

Because the house is set further south, okay.

Yes, it's in the middle, right?

Yeah, it's in the middle.

So I think it's right if I'm I'm gonna point it out on the map.

I believe it's like right in between these tree areas.

All right.

Yeah.

Okay, thank you.

Okay.

Um the last concern that I wanted to go over was the I I did already cover it a bit on the uh lot compatibility.

Um given when the surrounding area was constructed and developed, they did choose to do double the size of what the minimum requirement is.

Um so it does not change the established zoning of the site, which is RD5.

And although that the proposed lots are smaller than the existing adjacent lots, they do meet RD5 lot standards and the size requirement of 5200 square feet.

Um so based on all of that information, um, we we still continue to find that the proposed project is consistent with the general plan, community plan, and zoning code as conditioned.

The project is compatible with surrounding zoning and land uses.

There are no significant environmental concerns.

And while the project was not supported by the Farrook CPAC, it was found consistent with the design guidelines by the DRAC.

Um it provides much needed housing opportunity and is compliant with all applicable lot development standards for the RD5 zoning district.

And for these reasons, staff recommends the board deny the appeal and approve the requested entitlements.

So the actions would be to recognize that the project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to SQL guidelines.

Adopt the mitigation monitoring and reporting program, approve the tentative subdivision map, and find the project in substantial compliance with design guidelines, all subject to findings and conditions.

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

Kimber, I'm gonna before I give it to Supervisor Cerna, I just want to say that every time you come up here and you make a presentation, you're very thorough, you're clear.

Um you speak very well, and your presentations are always very interesting in in how you deliberate.

So just great job there.

Supervisor Cerna.

Thank you, Chair.

Um Thank you for the presentation, Kimber.

I uh uh a little bit later on our agenda, we're gonna be considering uh uh amendment to our housing element, if I'm not mistaken.

So I guess what I'd like to understand is that if um this board were to uh vote uh for the in favor of the appeal, um what, if anything, uh would or could HCD um review in terms of the county's disposition to uh voting to um side with the uh the appeal, therefore um in the you know could be uh the perspective of HCD that Sacramento County um despite its own zoning is reluctant to um approve housing where it's actually zone for and I suspect it's probably in our arena um uh inventory um is so I guess where I'm going with this is that if if we were to vote uh uh for the successful appeal, could HCD look at that action in addition to others and question you know the the sincerity of the county when it comes to meet its meeting its regional housing need.

I don't doubt that they could um also look at the same thing.

I know it's small, but I mean in all the in the scheme of things, but it's kind of a principal question.

Yes.

Yeah.

Okay.

All right, thank you.

Supervisor Desmond.

Thank you.

Um I know we're gonna hear from the the CPAC chair, I believe, and and and um a lot of the neighbors, but I do have a few um clarifying questions.

Thank you, Supervisor Cerner, for bringing that up because I think a specter that's been hanging over a lot of my uh thoughts about this project, including discussions with staff, are what are the implications not only on what the state could potentially do, but what what are the implications of recent legislation for a parcel like this?

And I'm specifically talking about SB9, which allows for increased density.

Um could you could you tell me a little bit about uh based on your understanding of SP9?

If if another developer came in here and wanted to do something much denser, what would they be able to do under state law that is is not consistent with our locally um local zoning standards?

Yeah, so for SB9, it it there probably isn't anything that the current applicant can do, but it once they're all sold to new property owners, those can all be further subdivided.

And this goes for all of the properties that are along Shrewsbury Avenue and Glenbarway and that whole Highland Hill subdivision.

Um it really limits the size of the lot.

So you can go down to 1200 square feet for a lot in that case.

Um there is some parameters there, but it is a ministerial process.

Like you are looking at something that is done at a staff level review.

Um, and so you can further split parcels in two.

You can then also add additional units, um, including more primary structures with ADUs and two ADUs there.

Yeah.

So you you are looking at quite a more denser product through SB9.

That is something that can just be done at the staff level.

And when I met with members of the community, I brought this up a little bit, but I think that's always important to keep that in mind that the state has in in many, many ways, it has subverted local land use control when it comes to housing.

And in some cases, I agree with it.

In some things, in some cases it makes sense, but it has to be you know intentional, and we have to try to mitigate the impacts on the communities.

I uh a question about the zoning.

This is RD5.

You mentioned it's been zoned RD5 since when.

Yeah, so looking back, um it was rezoned to RD5 in 1979.

Um and prior to that it was zoned R1B, and I actually did go back and looked at the lot size requirements for R1B from 1979, and they were um the same lot size requirements as the RD5 zoning district, so 5200 square feet.

Okay.

And I I think that's important as well.

I mean, uh just historic for historical context that this has been zoned that way.

And and the prior developers of the Highland, I mean, they they actually probably could have developed more densely.

Yes.

Um and then the the parcel, once again, what's the zoning on that uh parcel that front Sunset Boulevard there?

The one to the sunrise, sunrise, I'm sorry.

Our business professional office BP.

And then what are the um the improvements that are we're requiring along Sunset?

So technically with the remainder lot, there aren't any improvements required with the map.

Um, but if the existing home comes through with a building permit, could be an addition, could be a really small building permit as well, that's when the frontage improvement would be a good idea.

Okay.

Yeah.

All right, thank you.

Supervisor Hume.

Thank you, Chair.

I I just want to go back to to where my colleague Supervisor Desmond started with a line of questionings because he asked a very specific question, you gave a great answer.

But I want to kind of tease out a little more of the trend of of where things are going with respect to the erosion of local control and and the state kind of uh imposing its land use uh desires on us.

Uh and so uh I don't know whether it was SB9, SB 10, AB 375, uh SB 39, whatever the bill numbers were, that they keep piling up that are gearing towards more and more densification and and more and more um ministerial decisions that really have very low bars for for what would have to be met in order to allow something to go forward.

In other words, there's not a lot of reasons you can deny somebody in what's called a by-right uh uh uh application.

And so, were this uh parcel to remain in an as-is state, as I understand it, because it is uh residentially zoned, that by right it could develop into four housing units.

Then, once those are established, by right, it can have two additional ADUs per housing unit.

Then uh by right, uh none of the infrastructure has been sized for the end density of use.

It was all sized for whatever the original proposal was.

And then uh uh kind of in the trend of way things are going, the longer that this site remains uh large and residentially zoned, one could presume that multifamily starts to come into play and that we will put in that it would be put into uh uh more dense uh apartment type uh of use.

Is that a correct assumption?

I mean, does that seem to be the trend of way things are going?

Okay, and so I'll save my comments for later, but I just wanted to put that out there that if you don't kind of take the burden hand and and plan appropriately, the way things are going is the opportunity to have discretion at a later date seems to be more and more elusive.

Okay.

Yeah.

All right, no questions.

Uh any other questions?

Are there any requests to speak?

There are some requests to speak, but I would first like to point out we do have the appellant Ted Walters here you can address.

Okay.

They have a presentation too, right?

Maybe.

If not, there's the question.

Well, thank you, Supervisors.

It's I think my second time ever appearing in front of this podium.

Um and it's kind of funny to be here and realize how old I've gotten that the NTMP program is now 20 years old.

Um and Mr.

DeFonte is now the deputy county admit county executive.

So um uh this appeal for the CPAC, we're not opposed to a project on the site.

Procedurally, this was a difficult situation for us.

Um when we heard the project, we had, I think 20, 25 neighbors present at the hearing who were opposed to the project.

The applicant was not present.

So we made a recommendation.

Effectively, we can recommend denial with comments, but we can't recommend conditional approval.

It's either approved, denied, one way or the other.

So we recommended denial with comments about some of the concerns that we had.

This the planning commission then approved it in August of 2025, and we were then faced with do we or do we not file an appeal?

In that context, again, we only had the neighbors come and testify to us, and the only testimony we received was effectively that the planning commission had approved the project as it had originally been proposed without any changes based on our comments, but we didn't have any context for why that decision may or may not have been made in the way that it was.

So when we had concerns about uh connecting through street versus cul-de-sacks, for example, one of my thoughts in in recommending denial was what do you do with the street name when you now have two different names streets connecting through with one connection?

Um we've dealt I had dealt with that situation a couple of times when I worked for this body.

Um but all we were allowed to consider on the appeal hearing was do we or do we not appeal?

We could not look at the planning commission materials.

We couldn't look at what we had done or what our recommendation was in 2024.

We were only allowed to consider do you or do you not appeal and take testimony from the community on that question.

We couldn't take testimony about the merits of the project, the substance of the project.

So our decision ultimately came down to we're not opposed to a project here.

Um and I think Supervisor Desmond and Supervisor Hume, your comments about the concern, you know, you've got something that you know what you're gonna get, versus if there's no project, you don't know what the state might do to the community in the future.

I think as a CPAC, we're generally pro-development, pro-housing, and we recognize the need for housing.

We're also recognizing of the fact that there's a lot of danger that if you don't approve something, if something doesn't go, and especially with a a parcel like this that is so close to a major transit corridor in Sunrise Boulevard, who knows what could come in the future.

Um but that said, it's also concerning for us when the only feedback we have is hey, we recommended a couple things.

We had a couple concerns, they weren't addressed at all, at least as far as we're aware of the CPAC based on what we received in the context of authorizing an appeal.

And so our ultimate feeling on it was because the CPAC can file an appeal at no cost, that the residents who had it seemed to us had not been listened to and heard by the planning commission, and that our comments hadn't been listened to and heard.

It seemed to us that it was fair to let um the residents have their day in court, their day in it before their elected board, not the appointed board.

So in total, the CPAC is not saying don't approve anything here.

Our concern was first of all, our comments did not appear to have been addressed.

But second of all, we couldn't really even know that because we weren't allowed to consider anything in the administrative record when considering whether or not to appeal.

So I also wanted to bring that point up that if there's a legal reason that we can't consider the record in deciding whether or not to appeal, that would be helpful for us to know why that is.

But if there isn't a legal reason, we can't consider the totality of the circumstance, read the staff report that went to the planning commission, which has a lot more review and analysis conducted at that point than when we see it as a CPAC, that would all be very helpful for us in deciding whether or not I mean you guys have a busy, busy schedule, and this is certainly going to eat up quite a quite a bit of your time today, and and you know, that's not something that we take lightly.

And I think it's the in all the years I've been on CPACs, which is gosh, I think probably 10 years now I've been serving on CPACs.

Um this is the only appeal I think a CPAC that I have sat on between Carmichael and Farroaks.

This is the only appeal that I've we've been a part of.

And then as chair, I I I get to draw the uh the straw to come down and present to you as the appellant.

So um and in that regard, I I was torn between suit or casual today.

I felt I'm I'm here purely in my capacity as as the CPAC chair, and I thought more of a casual community look would be would be appropriate.

So if if you want to uh criticize me for that, by all means that's that's fair.

Um but uh it if there's if there are any questions, I'm I'm I'm happy to address those.

Supervisor Sarda.

Thank you, Chair.

Uh thanks, Ted for being here.

Um if I heard you correctly, I think you said the Planning Commission didn't hear us.

Um I'm just curious, uh did this group, did your group, CPAC, plus um maybe interested community members that provided testimony at the CPAC hearing, did they did everyone show up in mass to the planning commission?

That is my understanding.

That was our understanding because they came back to the CPAC because we had to vote to appeal, I think within 10 days.

Is that is that correct?

We had something like a 10-day window to vote to appeal.

So it got agendized with basic 72 hours notice and added to our agenda.

Which is normal.

Yeah.

Yeah.

No, that that's that's normal, but but the CPAC does not, as a matter of course, attend planning commission hearings.

But there's nothing that prohibits any CPAC member, any member of the public from attending and providing testimony at Planning Commission hearings as well, correct?

That is true, but I also think I can't think of any time where a CPAC member or chair has attended uh a hearing.

I also would point out that in this in this case, we had a significant turnover in the membership of the CPAC between the 2024 hearing and then the 2025 appeal decision.

Okay.

Sounds so if I were to go if any of us were to go back and look at the on-the-record testimony for the planning commission, are we gonna are we gonna see some of the speakers we're likely to hear from here shortly?

I would anticipate that would be the case, yeah.

Okay.

Um and then you also made a comment about you know we didn't have access to staff reports, we didn't uh so that's troubling.

Um and I guess I'm looking at county council's uh office here.

I assume that any again, any member of the public, whether you're a CPAC member or not, you have access to all the materials of the planning commission for an item that's gonna be in an open session.

And so I find it difficult to understand or believe that there was uh you know uh uh some um obstacle to acquiring um materials for the for the planning, they should be accessible, correct, June?

Absolutely.

Absolutely.

The uh agendas and all of the um items that are going to be considered, the staff report, the attachments, those are all published on uh the county's website in advance of the hearing, just like items and materials are published in advance of your hearing.

Okay, very good.

Um I I just want to make sure I I understand correctly what I'm hearing is the account from um the CPAC leadership as well as the public versus what I know or what I want to have confirmed, which I just did, um, which is the availability of uh materials to the public in advance um legally required in advance of a planning commission meeting.

That's all I have right now.

Thank you.

Supervisor Hume.

Can I clarify one one thing based on Supervisor Cerna's comments that in the context of the appeal, I understood and still understand now the instructions that we received from the clerk's office was that we were not permitted to consider those materials in considering the appeal.

So it didn't matter if they were publicly available or not, we were not allowed to look at them or even consider that in the context of authorizing an appeal.

I I can't believe for a moment that you're not permitted to look at at materials.

Uh June, is there any clarification here?

I will say that is news to me.

Um I am not aware of any legal advice that's been given by the office of county counsel that would be consistent with that position.

Yeah.

All right, thank you.

And I will say from a standpoint from an attorney's standpoint, I kind of was like that didn't make sense.

But also from the standpoint of an attorney, I don't want to taint the administrative record by doing something that we should not have done.

So irrespective of of that question, um, first of all, I have encouraged the use of the CPAC appeal process in the past uh because I I think it is important that those closest to the neighbors are able to represent the neighbors without a a financial burden being placed on them to redress their government.

I think that's a function of democracy.

However, to your point and to the line of questioning, uh you have to have reasons for your appeal, things that you are standing on as far as how the process did not um play out appropriately.

And so I want to tease that out for a second here because in your appeal form, you mentioned the things that were brought up in Kimber's staff presentation relative to uh noise, traffic, speeding, parking, and lot sizes.

Okay.

Then today you just mentioned something that is actually a a pretty interesting piece of minutiae uh regarding how do you reconcile street naming conventions when you're connecting two streets that are not named the same.

All right.

So that's a completely different consideration.

Yeah.

So uh uh and I guess uh you know I would go back to what you uh appreciated the line of uh questioning for Supervisor Desmond and myself regarding what we can and can't control.

And so again, if you're not opposed to some project uh moving forward on this this property, it it really is, as my colleague said, a case of be careful what you wish for.

Because those things that you called out um are almost codified to be allowed by right under some of these state provisions.

If you add an ADU to your existing residential property, if you are within a quarter mile of a transit stop, any transit stop, not high high frequency, not any kind of permanent uh rail, any transit stop, you don't have to provide parking.

You don't have to provide an upgrade to any of the infrastructure that's in the ground.

Neither of the people living in the in the dwellings have to be owners, right?

And so there is a slippery slope here of um protesting uh what seems to be a reasonable uh infill project.

So I just want to put that out there as we're considering all of this, that you know, you run that risk.

I I think we're in heated agreement, and I'm glad I am now litigating and not involved in public policy decision making very extensively anymore.

Um you you five have a have a much more challenging job than we had 15, 20 years ago, I think, in the in the in the current environment.

I will say that it was and and the the applicant can speak to this.

I guess I'm the appellant, but not the applicant.

It's a little, it's a little weird, but um not having the applicant present to provide contradictory testimony, evidence, information, that puts us in an even more difficult, especially on the appeal decision.

It's like, well, where is five volunteers?

There were five of us, the four of us there for that meeting.

It's a it's a difficult position when we're making a decision, but we don't get all the information that would be helpful in rendering the decision in the context.

So can I just share a little bit?

One of the conversations I have quite often this last year is has been to me is what is the purpose of the CPAC?

Uh you know, uh people, you know, uh information um goes to community members, but there is information that I am finding that SCP CPAC members um don't have the level of knowledge that a planning commission has or that we at the Board of Supervisors have.

And so that it was I I see the value because you're able to bring projects to the community to let them know here's something that's coming down on the pipeline, people get information.

But there's a level of opposition that is no longer valid in the state of California that really has, and and we talked about the loss of local control.

So as CPAC members, if you don't have the level of knowledge about what is acceptable and what is not, and by us say potentially denying a project, we put the county at risk of uh of a um of a lawsuit that is really a a losing battle.

And you know, I I hate I I really hate to say this, but traffic noise parking, state of California doesn't care that it's impacted.

And these mandates that come down from the state, that is really what is happening, and that is why we are seeing neighborhoods that are changing that had maybe uh, you know, a small town feel or they were quaint and quiet, and that there's a property that is um available um somebody like uh, you know, uh I'll give my own, I I I like to share my own personal experience.

I live in an area where the lots are really big and there was a small piece of land that got put up.

Now it's affordable house affordable housing 136 units.

So it's changing the dynamics of the neighborhood, but we're seeing that throughout all of California in every neighborhood, uh, even as far as one of the most contentious ones that I've seen recently in Penrin, California that had uh uh I don't know, 300 something units that is that changes the dynamics of communities.

So in my notes here, I have there is a positive side.

The positive side is that you're getting homeowners and homeowners have such uh a different outlook on communities than getting an apartment unit that may have a hundred units that then changes it.

So I just want to share that um that particular feedback.

All right.

Um public comments.

All right.

At this point, we will move to public comments on this item.

Uh uh counsel would like me to ask if the applicant is present in the chamber.

Is the applicant we have a representative from the applicant?

Thank you.

Uh good morning, Chair Rodriguez, members of the board, Brian Holloway, Holloway Land Company representing the applicant today.

Um I would like to say that I came onto this project after the CPAC hearing and after the planning commission and after the appeal was filed.

Had I been involved uh during those meetings, there would have been much more information available provided to the CPAC, the residents, uh the planning commissioners, and much more, much more outreach, to be honest.

One thing I do have to say in regarding the um the uh the guts of the appeal, which is this confusion over the CPAC getting information.

I probably am the only person in the room who remembers why CPACs were created.

And they were created because back in the 70s, it was not customary for developers to go out to the neighborhood, knock on doors, talk to people about their project.

And neighbors wouldn't find out about the project until they got the scary notice in the mail that there was a planning commission or a board hearing.

So the whole purpose was to create a system where there was mandatory early notice, early notice to the neighbors in the community.

And so that's why the CPACs were created to and they they assign a member who goes out and knocks on doors, gets input, invites people to come to the CPAC meeting, and provide testimony about how they feel about the project.

And the CPAC's obligation was to reflect the neighbors' ideas, concerns, and thought about the project.

That's why it's only a recommendation.

They're not a hearing body.

They're not making an approval or denial.

You tried that for a while, having the C for the CPACs being planning commissions, and it was a disaster.

So that was the point, and I think what I'm hearing and I've seen over the decades is that there's sort of been mission creep about what the role of the CPAC is.

It's really to get the neighbors to know about the project, provide their input in a formal manner early.

That's why the CPAC meetings happen right after the project is submitted, after they go to the initial project review committee to find out what their obligations are.

Bingo.

Then the early notification happens, the CPAC happens.

So I just wanted to lay that out and kind of explain that there's been some mission creep here going on.

So I just wanted to remind you that as staff said the project is in the RD5 zoning district.

And it's very typical of in-fill projects in Sacramento County right now.

As you read the staff report confirms that the property in the project complies with the zoning code and the development standards.

The peel, in addition to the neighbors' concern or the CPAC's concerns about procedure, the appeal is based on the neighbors' preferences for larger larger lots like theirs, for larger homes, like theirs, for dead-end streets, like theirs.

But I could not resolve their demand for no street connections and lots that look like theirs.

While we respect their opinions, personal preference is not the standards by which the county operates by.

The standards are compliance with your board adopted policies and the zoning, and the project complies with all of those.

The planning commission made his decision based on sus substantial, having trouble today.

Substantial evidence in the record confirm and confirm that the project complies with the general plan, the Ferrox Community Plan, the County Housing Element, the zoning code, the county's design review standards, CEQA, and the county's development standards.

The staff and we looked at the alternatives which of cul-de-saxon uh different kinds of uh terminations of the street.

I can show you those if if you want.

Um we actually even looked at a suggestion that the county uh excuse me that the neighbors had to bring in a cul-de-sac from uh the uh from sunset, and the problem was is that you created another dead-end street where there's already two, there's a third uh private dead-end street here.

So if you came in with a fourth dead-end street, you basically have on one property four dead-end streets that you could throw a ball between.

It makes no sense in terms of planning or circulation or wildfire prevention or anything like that.

One moment, Brian.

Supervisor Serner.

I can wait to the end of this presentation.

Okay.

So I just wanted to make a note.

Um, the you'll recall that the the plan, the subdivision map connects those two streets, and the neighbors are saying that's out of character.

I would like to point out that immediately next door, there is you can see a termination of these two streets that ultimately connected in them them being tied together and providing better circulation.

So clearly, this development ultimately probably was planned to have that connection that we are proposing here.

And I'm ready for your uh questions.

Uh Supervisor Sarna.

Thank you, Chair.

Uh thank you, uh Brian.

Um I'm glad you started your presentation with um uh declaring that you came in kind of late on the back end of this, and that if you had been at the front end, you would have probably managed things differently, I suspect, in terms of outreach and fulfilling the mission as you um put it of the the of the CPAC.

Um I have a I'm interested.

Did your client um when did they acquire the property?

Do you know?

I don't know.

Okay.

But one could assume that if let's say not too long ago.

Yeah.

So one can assume that if I'm out looking for uh RD5 property, I'm looking I'm presumably I'm looking at the uh the potential uh parcels out there that are zoned appropriately uh for that density with all the various policies that come with RD5.

Um there are going to be some um I'm gonna have some expectations about level of difficulty uh in terms of approval, assuming I come in without requesting variances, without requesting density bonuses, without requesting deviant deviating from kind of the principal uh component parts of what's in our zoning code for that particular um uh zoning category.

So that's why I asked the question is that it seems to me that it's uh it's a bit unfair that if uh especially in uh the market that we find ourselves in and the shortage that we find ourselves in for housing of all types, that um for you know someone that is going to come in, take the risk, uh you know, uh find the funds, whether it's financing it or their own cash, um the assuming that uh by looking at our own zoning map and our zoning code that hey, at least I can start from the place that hey, the the county has set policy, well-established policy for years, if not decades, uh, around the expectation for this category and this this density level that assumes the uh the level of impacts that would come with that.

So from your estimation estimation, um what can you say about kind of that's why I asked the question about whether or not you knew when they purchased it.

Um their expectations I assume then were set fairly early that there wouldn't be this level of pushback.

Is that a fair statement?

I think developers, home builders need certainty.

And when you are uh have a piece of property and you go to the county and you have a pre-application meeting to flush out all the problems there could be, and you look at the zoning and look at the housing policies, you look at the development standards, you comply with all of those.

You ask the question about what would HCD do.

In my opinion, if the if the board or the planning commission turns down these projects that were rightfully designed to be this way, and you're complying with all of them, it's it would send a chilling uh message through the in-fill development community that you can't trust the zoning, you can't trust the plan, you can't trust the general plan, you can't trust the the housing element.

And so um, you know, infill is difficult.

And normally, to be honest, I'm doing infill projects, I'm rezoning the property.

I'm looking to do more density because we have housing shortage that has been created over the last 50 years because you know we've allowed neighbors in past to stop development according to the zoning and lower densities and and turn projects down.

Don't forget to comply.

Don't forget the abuse of CEQA too.

So thank you.

Any other questions?

No other questions.

I like to reserve a spot.

Uh just say a few words after the neighbors uh comment because I'd like to uh address some of those.

Sounds okay, Brian.

Okay, public comments.

Uh for this item.

Anyone who would like to speak or is signed up to speak, um, please stand now to be sworn.

So if if you've uh signed up, please stand to be sworn.

Please raise your right hand.

And the appropriate response is I do.

Do you swear that the testimony you are about to give this board is the truth, so help you God.

If you do not swear, do you so affirm?

I do.

When you come to the podium, please state your name for the record and the statement I have been sworn.

Thank you.

Good morning, Amanda.

Good morning, Madam Chair.

If you could just start with the members of the board and sworn.

What?

If you can please start by stating that you have been sworn.

Um my name is Amanda Herzog, and I have been sworn in the good morning, Madam Chair and members of the board.

Thank you for giving us the opportunity to present this morning.

In front of you, you should have a packet that we provided.

I'm a resident of Highland Hills, a neighborhood located in Fair Oaks, California.

Highland Hills is a well-established neighborhood consisting of 41 single-story homes.

Most built in the early 1960s.

Added 10 homes.

The existing neighborhood is shown on the left side.

Here the proposed project would subdivide a 1.77 acre property into seven parcels and a remainder lot with the connector street between Glen Bar and Shrewsbury.

We have developed recommendations and proposed project alternative.

We will describe these today using the present presentation packet provided.

Earlier this month, we emailed the previous version of this copy, and we will show updated slides clarifying some points.

We will first provide an overview of the project chronologically before getting into the details of our alternative proposal.

In April uh 2024, the Fair Oak CPAC recommended denial of requests and provided additional recommendations.

In August of 2025, the Planning Commission approved the entitlement requests.

The planning commission also approved the notice of exemption because county staffs reported the project was consistent with zoning community plan and general plan policies.

You could just wrap it up.

Okay.

The appeal was continued in early December because the developer requested additional time for his team to meet within the neighborhood.

The CPAC chair provided written support for the continuance.

And Pamela will continue.

Thank you, Amanda.

Good morning.

My name is Pamela Connellas, and I have been sworn.

County staff indicates the tentative parcel map is consistent with Sacramento County's general plan use LU 103.

This policy states neighborhood identity should be maintained and or enhanced in existing and developing areas.

Its intent is that the county must work very closely with communities to not only clarify the identity that the residents would like to see achieved, but also to determine the specific steps that can be taken to work toward the desired outcome.

Our experiences that the applicant and the county staff have not worked closely with us.

Therefore, the project has not complied with the general plans tool for maintaining community identity and sense of place.

Here are examples of our experience with this project.

Number one, county staff did not attempt to discuss the project with us to clarify what the residents would like to see achieved, nor to agree upon specific steps that could be taken to work toward that desired outcome.

Number two, when we asked if we could appeal the planning commission's decision, county staff initially said no, then corrected themselves, noting a $4,138 fee.

They did not mention the provision that allows CPAC to submit a community interest appeal on our behalf, which would waive that fee.

Number three, SB 330 allows for five public hearings on a housing project application that complies with the general plan and zoning standards.

The planning commission was considering a continuance until county staff stated that the five public hearing limit had been reached.

After the meeting, they corrected themselves, stating that the project had only been to three hearings.

Four county staff have not provided clear answers to questions regarding existing residents, future financial burden associated with the project, and how eminent domain will enter the process.

Please turn to the next page.

Laura Paskins will continue the presentation.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next up, Laura Haskins.

Good morning.

At the April 2024 Fair Oaks CPAC meeting, county staff stated a CEQA environmental analysis would be conducted for the proposed project.

A 30-day public comment period is typically provided for CEQA documents.

Over a year later, on July 17, 2025, we received a planning commission public hearing notice, which stated the developer's proposed project was exempt from CECOA.

There was no explanation for why a CEQA document was not required.

I'd like to note the item needed to be rescheduled from July 17th to August 20 August 25th because county staff neglected to include all interested parties on the hearing distribution list.

A member of the community submitted a public records act request on July 24th, 2025, but County staff delayed their response to the request.

The Planning Commission report was finally made available less than one week before the rescheduled hearing date.

This did not provide enough time for us to analyze the data and develop a proposal prior to the planning commission meeting.

However, submitted comments raised the concern that a CEQA notice of exemption would not be applicable for the project and that there would be impacts, including traffic impacts.

Once the community interest appeal was approved, we worked to analyze the planning commission report and fully develop our alternative proposal.

The community was prepared to present our findings and recommendations at the December 9th, 2025 Board of Supervisors meeting.

But the item was continued because the developers team expressed an interest in working with the neighborhood.

The developers team met with us in November 2025 and February 2026, but the developer will not consider a reduction in the number of parcels.

After a meeting with Supervisor Desmond on February 9th, we provided our alternative proposal to all of the supervisors.

Please turn to the next page.

Colleen Kinschillow will continue the presentation.

Our next speaker speaker is Colleen Kicello.

Hello, my name is Colleen Kinschlow, and I have been sworn.

I first moved on to Glenbar Way in 1977, just to give some historic perspective.

Moving back to our slides, County staff recommended a notice of exemption to be approved for this project because they claim the project is consistent with the development density established by zoning, community plan, or general plan policies for which an environmental impact report had been certified.

However, the neighborhood's review of the proposed project finds that it is not consistent with the following zoning code, development standards, and government code, general plan, land use policies, and goal two of the Fair Oaks Community Plan.

Please turn to the next page.

Okay.

In summary, the neighborhood recommends the number of parcels be reduced to four.

This would result in consistency with zoning code and government code, consistency with the Fair Oaks community plan, a better contribution to the immediate neighborhood and the surrounding community, better compatibility with the existing neighborhood, better ability to maintain or enhance neighborhood identity, fewer negative impacts to the overall neighborhood.

Supporting details will be provided on the following slides.

Please turn the to the next page.

Chad Berryman will continue in the presentation.

One moment, I have a question.

Thank you.

So if you go back to the previous slide there.

So I want to understand before I make a decision today whether or not this has any legal weight.

I assume our county council's office had throughout the process, uh, from the time that the applicant submitted to the time materials were prepared for the CPAC hearing to the time that materials were home or refined and presented at Planning Commission, and of course, what we have before us today, that County Council's office uh scrubbed or scrutinized the question of consistency as they do on a very regular basis uh for projects and concluded uh something different.

So um maybe the county council could um elaborate a little bit about um what took place in terms of coming to a conclusion that there was consistency.

Yes, thank you.

Um so at each stage, especially at the planning commission stage, county council is present and county council, not me, a different county council, did have the opportunity to review the materials and did not have any objection to the consistency finding.

Um I also did review the rate the materials for today's hearing, and I do not have an issue with the consistency finding.

I did receive and review the information provided by uh the neighbors.

Um I think there are some inaccuracies in the information that they provided.

Specifically, they they indicated like that the remainder lot could not be considered in the density calculation.

I looked at the government code section they cited.

It does not even apply to remainder lots.

It applies to performance bonds.

The government code section that addresses the establishment and the effect of remainder lots says nothing about the calculation for density.

Um even with that, as Kimber thoughtfully reviewed and carefully reviewed.

This project is consistent with the required density.

I am mathematically challenged, and I went through how many square feet is in one acre, and all the calculations uh it's consistent.

And and one thing I do want to point out since she brought this up, case law says that there does not have to be an exact match between a proposed subdivision and the applicable general or community plan.

That's not the requirement for consistency.

Um and it also gives great deference to the lead agency uh to make the consistency finding because they are the ones that have the unique competence to interpret the policies that are at issue.

And when several plan policies are um at issue and have to be balanced, um the agency that adopted those policies is in the best position to strike that balance.

And one of those competing policies is, as you all have mentioned, the need for infill housing.

Thank you for that, um June.

Um yeah, as a as a uh former project manager and and land use planner myself, someone that studied um land use uh planning uh pretty extensively and practice it uh for a while.

Uh the consistency doctrine in California land use planning is one of the most um carefully considered, I think, uh from a especially from a legal standpoint uh relative to uh any decision we're making, especially as it relates to housing.

So that's why I uh interrupted your flow a bit here, and I apologize for that.

But I think to to let the presentation continue without hearing what we just heard from county council's office uh to put the finer points that are very important about consistency, I think would uh um not serve us well in terms of uh being informed before making a decision.

So that's why I did what I did.

Thank you.

And our next speaker is Chad Berryman.

Good morning, Chad.

Good morning.

Thank you for uh being here and listening to us.

Um with what was just said, I'm sorry, I'm Chad Berryman and I've been sworn.

Um I'm not gonna read what I what I had planned because it is important to note that none of us in the neighborhood are lawyers, nor did we hire a lawyer.

We found out about this project and we decided we needed to look into it ourselves.

So we all did different pieces and parts and grabbed what we could.

That made sense to us.

So I hope that we haven't misspoke.

I'm sure they probably are in inconsistencies or uh incorrect statements.

Um this is the one that I did.

So I took the um the parcel map and I went in and I compared it to the subdivision plan.

I calculated out all the sizes of the lots and did that, uh, estimated the size of the street, and I assumed that was the whole part of it.

Um and I assumed that the uh remainder lot was part of that 1.77 acres.

If it is, then what I came up with was 1.23 acres based on all seven lots in the connector street.

And that only came out to 1.23 acres, which if RD5 is in play, means that it should be 6.15 rounded down to six.

So that's all I wanted to say.

Thank you very much.

Turn to the next slide.

But we would like to talk about them if it's okay.

And uh the next speaker up is uh Paul Kyle.

Thank you.

Next speaker, Paul Kyle.

Good morning.

My name is Paul Kyle, and I have been sworn in.

The Fair Oaks Community Plan includes goal two, which is to maintain and promote the distinctive semi-rural, predominantly family residential character of the Fair Oaks community.

County staff's analysis indicates the tentative parcel map is consistent with this goal.

However, the community notes that the staff report omitted analysis of whether the proposed project meets the last item in goal two, which encourages the development of residential estates on lots of 10,000 square feet in size or greater.

The lot sizes for the proposed project are about 5,800 square feet, not 10,000 square feet or greater.

Therefore, the tentative map is inconsistent with the entirety of goal two of the Fair Oaks community plan.

Please go to the next page.

Please turn to the next page.

My wife Karen Nea will be presenting now.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Karen Neal.

Too high.

These 11 homes now have parcel sizes of approximately 10,000 square feet, which is also consistent with goal two of the Fair Oaks Community Plan.

On the other hand, the developer is proposing parcel sizes that are about half the size of the lot sizes recommended by goal two.

Please turn to the next page.

The following slides provide some examples.

Please turn to the next page.

Alan Leon will continue the presentation.

Our next speaker is Alan Leon.

I'm Alan Lung, and I've been sworn in.

So on page 16 here was shows a seven RD5 infill developments within two miles behind the hills.

They were all built between 1990 through 2020.

When we researched these projects, what we found were they were consistent with neighborhoods that were added onto, generally speaking, within a few percentage point difference in loss sizes.

And they were all at least 0.23 acres.

This aligns directly with goal two of the Faroe's Community Plan, which calls for maintaining similar parcels areas.

However, what is being proposed here is materially different.12 and 0.18 acres.

That's an average of 0.135 compared to an average of 0.24.

That's roughly a 45% reduction in loss size.

These proposed lots are inconsistent with the established pattern of development and with every other RD5 infill projects around the area.

So if you turn to the next page, what you'll see is a dot plot showing all the infill projects, um, RD5 info projects across Fair Oaks.

The black DOS at the bottom left corner that you see there uh shows the proposed lots.

As you can see, they're substantially smaller than every single recent projects, even smaller than the RD7 project, right down the street on Old Village Place.

Now, what this proposal is doing is pushing density beyond typical RD5 expectations, and it's inconsistent with the goals of L U 17, LU94, and LU 103, which calls for maintaining neighborhood identity and to improve quality of life.

We understand there are broader housing pressures and county wide obligations.

We're not a bunch of disgruntled people trying to stop development here.

What we're asking for, however, is development that remains consistent with the Fair Oaks community plan and the precedent that's been established over the decades.

Reducing the project from seven lots will preserve neighborhood identity, align with RD5 infill developments, and still allow additional housing to be added.

We respectfully ask your decision today, reflect an entrenched identity in Fair Oaks, the precedent that's been set and policy framework that's guided Fairoaks developments for decades.

Thank you.

And our next speaker is Adrian Cowam.

Good morning, Adrian.

Good morning, Madam Chair.

I'm Adrian Calham.

I've been sworn.

Uh thank you for having me.

And um listening to all of us.

Um there are on that Shrewsbury Road, there are 10 existing homes, and this infill project is looking at adding a total of seven.

That's a 70% increase in dwelling units in this in the in the small area.

We know that the community is unhappy with the density that is being proposed.

And we respectfully ask um to consider a reduced number of parcels to four.

You can see on this graph, we did our own data collection on the number of trips that occur on average and on Shrewsbury.

And what we determined were there are 34 vehicle trips per day on average.

And listening to Kimber speak, she said that it was determined.

Uh, hopefully I get this right, that there would be a total of 99 and increase to 99 vehicle trips on Shrewsbury.

That's a 200% increase.

I do think that is impactful.

I do think that is significant.

I do think that should be considered in this project.

Um, and that's just Shrewsbury.

There will also be impact on Glen Barway, the connection street.

Um, and I do think that these impacts, these uh are significant and should be taken into consideration.

So you can see on this page uh a comparison of what the neighborhood could look like with a seven with seven parcel size versus a four parcel size.

Our Fair Oaks community has shouldered the burden of infill projects.

There is an infill project around the corner on Fair Oaks and Winding that is 15 townhomes.

We have multiple ADUs in our neighborhood, and there's a infill project right around the corner that is um 3,000 square foot homes on 10,000 square foot lots.

So we do believe this can be a win-win-win situation for everybody.

If I'll stop there, sorry for going over.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you, Adrian.

Our next speaker is Elizabeth Metal.

Good afternoon, Elizabeth.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair.

I'm Elizabeth Middle, and I have been sworn.

And I'm requesting to cede my two minutes to my husband, Gil Madell.

Okay.

Thank you, and good morning.

I'm Gil Medell, and I've been sworn in.

And we should be on the last page.

You can see uh that the uh notice of exemption, it's our belief that the notice of exemption is appropriate for four parcels, not seven.

And so we recommend that the uh Board of Supervisors require the number of parcels to be juice from seven to four.

Um and in terms of localized significant impact to traffic, a four-parcel project would be up to, as we stated, 50% less than the impact that would incur with a seven parcel project.

I understand there's some question about the consistencies here of the development matching, but uh if the county wants to continue to pursue a notice of exemption for the project, it's our uh contention that the number of parcels should be reduced to four.

And from a personal standpoint, I'm frustrated because this whole thing feels like an exercise in futility.

Uh the cynic in me feels like someone with money by right, as we heard, can come in from the outside and work with the county government to flex their power over us, individual citizens.

The Board of Supervisor decides what is allowed.

The developer told us that he has to have seven lots as if it's a requirement.

But we know no one is making them do so.

This is a choice, and greed plays no small part.

Shouldn't there be a balance between profit and maintaining or enhancing neighborhood identity and compatibility?

Must the balance be in favor of profit?

Why not four lots?

And now I'm gonna start on my time.

Thank you very much.

Oh, wait, I'm sorry.

Are you are you okay with seceding time?

Uh no, because that's not a practice that we have.

Sorry, I I I I thought that she had was giving her time up to her husband.

Right, and now I'm exercising my right for my two minutes.

Oh, I'm sorry, yeah, we don't allow that here.

But I will go ahead since there was since I created the confusion.

Okay, I appreciate that.

So I believe it's a mistake to say that we have no power on this issue as individual citizens, because we're not individuals.

We're not living in isolation.

We live side by side in the same neighborhood, and we interact regularly.

We share our lives.

We care for each other's homes, we care for each other's pets when we're on vacation.

Our kids play together and we give each other swimming and piano lessons, we exchange cookies on Christmas.

We're united community.

And it's important to note the people here represent a neighborhood where the homes are owner-occupied.

We're not renters.

And so what happens in our neighborhood directly impacts all, and that's why we're united.

And so we're exercising our right to speak up in opposition to this project the way that it's proposed.

We're united in opposition because we're not willing to just let someone expect that we're okay with all the things that have been outlined with an increase in traffic in our neighborhood, an increase in parking, additional risk to our kids who play in the streets every day, and just an overall change in the structure and aesthetics of our neighborhood.

As a result, there's also going to be a likely decrease in our home's property values.

And what do we get in return?

Nothing.

So this is not acceptable to us.

And while it appears that we have no power individually on this, we're not altogether powerless.

It's been noted that we represent over 40 homes with easily over a hundred citizens who vote.

And we all have family, we all have extended family, even friends.

And united, our influence is not insignificant.

We're going to be impacted by your decision.

There's no question about that.

But it's wrong to think that we're okay with any decision that you make.

Thank you for your time and thanks for the accommodation.

Thanks.

Our next speaker is Sam McGee.

Good afternoon, Sam.

Hi, my name is Sam McGee, 8,000 Glen Barway.

I've been sworn in.

I've lived there 50 years.

So I'm not a newcomer.

I am so proud of all my neighbors and what they've said in this meeting.

I cannot believe the interest and the time and energy they put into this.

And they've done their homework.

And I hope everyone respects that.

Because they believe in that neighborhood.

That neighborhood, most of the sales of homes in there is by attrition.

Yeah.

Most of us hang around long enough and finally we check out.

I'm 83.

I'm not that far away.

And I'm gonna be there pretty soon, I'm sure.

I'm not I don't want to hurry, but I'm but anyhow.

Thank you ever so much for listening.

And I really do applaud and appreciate all of my neighbors.

Thank you ever so much.

They stood up, they stepped up, and you know where we're coming from.

Let's try to keep it that way for the future.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And our final speaker today is Cynthia Ulrich.

Hello, Cynthia.

Hello, I'm Cynthia Alridge, and I've been sworn in.

And I'm gonna try to read this, but I live at 7969 Glen Bar away.

My parents did.

My father passed away in July of 24, and my mother did a week later.

The home is not real estate for us.

It's where our family was built, where our birthdays were celebrated, holidays were held.

Our grandchildren grew up in the backyard, playing in the streets with the friends and all the neighbors.

My mother cared for her property every single day.

My father knew every neighbor on the block.

They chose that neighborhood because it was stable, peaceful, and residential.

It was never meant to sit next to a high-impact development.

Today my sisters and I are trying to sell that home as part of selling their estate.

And I need to be honest, the proposed development next door is already making that incredibly difficult.

Prospective buyers ask about it, they hesitate and they walk away.

For our family, this isn't the planning.

A discussion.

Sorry, is it developing is directly affecting our ability to sell our parents home and preserve the value of what they worked their entire lives to build.

That house represents their life saving, is represents security for their children and grandchildren.

And right now the security feels uncertain.

We are not against progress, but progress should not come at the expense of families that have invested decades into the community.

I respectfully ask that the you that you consider the real major impact this project is having on neighboring homeowners, especially families like ours, who are grieving and trying to do the responsible thing and close this chapter.

My parents believed in the community, and I hope this decision reflects the same care and responsibility.

Thank you.

Thank you, Cynthia.

All right, we will now bring it back to the board.

Supervisor Hume.

Oh, the applicant's coming back.

Yes.

Okay.

Thank you.

Brian Holloway, Hollywood Lamb Company representing the uh the applicant.

Um this appeal, as you heard this this morning, um, now afternoon, is partially about county procedures as described by Mr.

Walter, the chair, um, about when SQL review happens and when staff reports are available to the CPAC, which is early on.

Um, but more importantly, this appeal asked the board to substitute subjective neighborhood preferences for adopted zoning, a general plan and housing policies.

While we respect the neighbors, and I would compliment on their very extensive presentation today.

Um they've they provided no evidence of future traffic concerns, no evidence of future parking problems, and this is all part of their appeal.

Uh no no evidence of excessive noise or neighborhood compatibility or community-wide interest, and therefore there are no findings on which you could approve the appeal.

Um however, the staff report, both to the planning commission and the board, um, does show and does contain the evidence and the findings uh allowing your board to deny the appeal and hope and uphold the commission's approval, and we would urge you to do that and look forward to your deliberations.

And we would urge you to do that and look forward to your deliberations.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Any questions?

No.

Questions.

All right.

Supervisor Hume.

Thank you, Chair.

I appreciate those final comments there, Mr.

Holloway.

It's an important consideration, and I'll I'll address them in my deliberation, and I appreciate a little bit of uh leniency from my colleagues because I'm going to tell a bit of story and some history of my own personal experience in land use planning and in serving this body and others.

And they're going to feel a little bit like I'm rolling up the newspaper to swatch you on the nose, and that's not my intention at all.

But I want to lay out for you exactly what the landscape is that we're dealing with and that's being uh foisted upon us.

And so Mr.

Midell is not wrong that private property rights are being eroded.

And uh and the consideration for neighbors and neighborhoods is being completely discounted.

And um, and the State is injecting more and more control over what we do as a local land use jurisdiction.

And so when I was on the Elk Grove Planning Commission, having also had a background in land use planning and development, where I understood the tricks of the trade a little bit.

I was taking what I knew from my day job and applying it in the evenings and taking what I learned in the evenings and applying it in my day job, we created a rural area in Elk Grove.

Maximum lot size uh or excuse me, minimum lot size of two acres, two-acre parcels.

I knew that that's just words on paper unless you build into it some sort of actual physical protection that guarantees that density.

And so we wrote a policy to disallow uh the extension of wet infrastructure in beyond certain uh markers, uh, because then that invokes the county health department that says in order to have a separation for a well and septic, you cannot do that on a parcel size less than two acres.

So it was a way of building something in there that had some teeth, because otherwise plans change, uh paper is is rendered obsolete.

My successor and his colleagues on the Elk Grove City Council now uh have a development proposal uh that would break that cellophane into the rural area and take what would be roughly 40-ish two-acre parcels, and I think the proposal is somewhere in the neighborhood of 835.

So if you think this particular proposal is a departure from plans that had been laid, uh I can tell you there are other situations to point to.

Now, some of the things that I brought up in response to uh Supervisor Desmond's questions earlier regarding ADUs and and where the State is going on this.

When I was on the Elkro City Council, I had a constituent call me and wanted to invite me out to their backyard to show me that right out the sliding glass door from their dining room, they were staring at a 16-foot wall of plywood from an ADU that was being constructed.

Three feet off of property line.

Even though the original houses had to have a setback of five feet, ADUs, by right from state law, can have a setback of three feet.

They don't require any upgrade to the electrical infrastructure, to the sewer infrastructure, to the water infrastructure, and as I said earlier, if they're within a quarter mile of a transit stop, they don't have to provide parking space number one.

That's one of the SB's nines.

SB9 or SB 10, I don't remember which one, because they keep throwing them at us, and we can barely even keep up.

Another State uh mandate, and either 10 or 9, I don't remember which one says that any residentially zoned parcel, by right, can have four housing units.

So if any of your neighbors' houses burns down and somebody buys that lot, they could put a four-plex there.

Literally, that is state law.

So now I don't know these developers.

Uh I know the applicant's representative, but I don't know the developers, and I hope I'm not giving them any idea.

But if they were to say, hey guys, sure, we'll do four lots, that sounds like just the thing we want to do.

Each of those lots now, by right, could have four housing units on it.

So rather than having seven lots that are, you know, maybe smaller than you would like, but are appropriately sized to where they're gonna fit one house and and a little bit of a backyard, now they could put up four plexus on each of those four lots, and you'd have sixteen new housing units instead of seven.

Because that person that called me out to look at the ADU in their backyard, she said, this isn't right.

You just took my neighborhood from being RD5 to RD six.

I said, first of all, I didn't take your neighborhood, the state told us.

But let me explain, we didn't take it to RD six, it's now RD 10.

Because they can do it, that neighbor can do it, that neighbor can do it, they can do it, and you can do it.

Sorich, I am where I don't know where there you are up there.

I am so sorry for what you're going through, and I and I hope you're able to sell your settle your parents' estate.

But you mentioned something about security and uncertainty.

And the longer that lot remains vacant, the the less security and certainty you have.

And when you have a development where the end of the street is a barricade and not a cul-de-sac, something is gonna happen on the other side.

So I appreciate you all taking the time.

Uh and I and I agree that you should be commended for having this interest, but I am just uh I'm beside myself because I am a staunch advocate for property, private property rights, and the state is just jamming policies down our throat that truly tie our hands.

And why this is important is because as Mr.

Holloway ended his um rebuttal.

Goes back to the consistency question.

If we are specious in our findings and just deny something because that's what feels good for the neighborhood, and we don't actually have a legal leg to stand on.

HCD can come in and they can actually put a moratorium where we cannot approve any building permit anywhere in the county because we're out of compliance with our RENA numbers, regional housing needs assessment.

So I feel for you, I I I you know, in a perfect world, uh it would happen and people would be good operators and it would be uh something that makes sense.

But I'm telling you, take what you can while you can, because it's from everything I can see, it gets worse from here.

So those are my comments.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Supervisor Desmond.

Thank you, um Supervisor Hume.

Always appreciate appreciate your comments um and your experience.

And it's uh some very compelling thoughts.

You know, I I uh first I wanna want to start by thanking everybody.

I want to start by thanking Ted Walter, the CPAC chair, for taking the time.

I know you care very deeply about the community.

Um it's yeoman's work that the CPAC members do.

I mean, they're kind of the first line of defense to to hear concerns from the community.

And I will also say, you know, the CPACs, there's always that delicate balance between getting the community uh involvement and input on projects without becoming an impediment to more investment.

And something else to keep in mind, Brian, with CPACs, as you know in Sacramento County, a lot of the discussion around them was and and beefing up their authority was when a lot of incorporations were happening in the county.

And and certainly a feeling from people in the county in unincorporated communities, um, which constitute 90 percent of my district, um kind of an unenviable position I'm in.

Um they it was a way to get the county more engaged in these communities and and make people know that their voice is important.

Um I want to transition to to Gil.

You know, Gil, when you spoke, um that really that really hits me hard when you when you say that you don't think you know we care about what what you're saying up here.

I do care.

I I'm born and raised in Carmichael.

I live in the house where all of my eight brothers and sisters and I were raised.

Um I have seen the changes that you're you're confronting right now.

And it's not easy.

It may seem like a small thing in the in the uh in the macro when you're looking at a 1.6 million people in Sacramento County and a huge county apparatus, but is uh it is a big thing to you in your neighborhood.

And and I get that.

It's a big change I've seen over the course of my lifetime.

I mean, we've all seen that people who've lived here a long time have seen w neighborhoods that were family farms, five acres apiece with orchards and livestock, um, subdivide and and subdivisions coming in and and densification happening everywhere.

Um that's not easy.

I I think of my dad when I was growing up, uh, when we were kids, uh there there were those large parcels everywhere around us.

And my father was a property attorney, and he all he did, he spent his career fighting for private property rights.

But it also and and he would he would do that to the death to preserve your ability to do what you want with your land as long as it didn't affect other people.

But it also pained him deeply to see the change in the character of the neighborhood.

And uh and I understand that.

And Brian, I am gonna take issue with something, your closing remarks.

I mean, from a legal perspective, in terms of you said no evidence has been submitted about this, that, and the other thing.

I I disagree with you.

I mean, it will impact traffic.

It will impact it it will certainly change some things in the neighborhood for these folks who live right there.

Does it rise to a level to trigger, I think, some of the, like you mentioned, to trigger the scrutiny that we would otherwise apply, or it may not rise to the level of us being able to hang our hat on it to, you know, deny this project, but it does matter.

And I think you were a little bit dismissive about that.

Um I think, you know, Supervisor Hume has uh talked a lot about it.

I mean, we are we are struggling really as a county right now, and every a lot of communities, local communities everywhere with this mandate from the State.

Um you've got the right of property owners to develop.

Uh you've got a lot of pressure from the State to densify these communities with local governments trying to hold the line, trying to preserve some of our local land use authority, and we have an overarching need for more housing in the State of California.

I mean, that that is is clearly the case.

I think you see here from the comments that this is going to move forward at this level.

I think you can see that.

Um there are, you know, I'll tell you, there are people that would tell me in a position like this, hey Rich, avoid the heat, vote no on this project, because then at least you won't be the one that gets attacked at the local Fair Oaks meeting, the community meeting that I hold.

And I fully expect that from every one of you.

But I'm not going to take that way out.

I don't think that is the right approach.

I have a lot of consternation about these changes, but I am going to to, I'm not going to make the motion to support this.

Um but I will support denying the appeal here today.

But my job as your representative is to make damn sure that the county does everything we can to mitigate any negative impacts that might that might arise, whether that's traffic related, whether that's noise related, any quality of life issue that comes up, and uh and I will certainly commit to that uh to you.

Supervisor Cernan.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

So I I will uh make the motion to deny the appeal and ask for a second before I make my comments.

I'll second.

Okay.

Um I have already asked uh a number of questions that were important to me and and uh helping me conclude my position on this.

But um I do think it's important um that the applicant, not the applicant's representative, I presume the two gentlemen sitting to Mr.

Holloway is right, that they understand that when you don't show up to a CPAC meeting, or you don't show up to a planning commission meeting, and you don't show up to a board meeting, you don't show up to a convening where uh your future as a project is being even on an advisory level is being shaped.

Um that does not bode well for you.

That's how you find yourself here, is when you don't show up.

So um I've got some words to share later in our agenda under comments from uh board members relative to asking staff to come back with some policy alternatives as it relates to CPACs and and housing appeals.

I won't uh belabor that here.

Uh but I'm also going to add to that uh some suggestions for what we might consider in terms of um uh kind of fine-tuning our policy about applicants having to show up at CPAC meetings, and if they don't show up, then their item gets punted until they do show up.

I think that's fair, because I don't think it's fair what we heard um here about having to guess about some of the the important uh elements of what is being proposed.

That that to me is not good planning, that's not good governance.

So I'll leave it there.

Um I would too want to add my thanks to um the residents that took the time and effort, not just to be here to to share your concerns, but I think to put together put together a very thoughtful presentation.

Um we don't often um see it at this level, so um I I do appreciate that.

Uh but nonetheless, uh as the motion maker, I do find that the uh the evidence, if you will, or the the facts that is presented uh by the residents don't rise to a level, at least for me, uh, to uh support uh the appeal.

So I have additional comments from Supervisor Desmond, and then I just have a quick comment after that.

And thank you, Supervisor Cern, for bringing that up about the the applicant, the developer on this uh project, because I had a note about that too.

I it it it certainly does not escape me that we may not even be here today had the um applicant actually engage with the neighbors at a much earlier time.

It did certainly did not inspire any confidence, it did not provide an opportunity for more thoughtful discussion about this.

It didn't represent, I think, any sensitivity to the concerns of the neighbors.

So thank you for raising those points.

And uh I just I I've said my comments earlier today, but I do want to say that I think you guys are great neighbors, and I love the way that you um treat each other, and I hope you welcome your new neighbors in with that same type of um welcoming and making them a part of your community because you know I stand that I stand with that people who own their homes in our neighborhoods have much more have greater investments than some major big developments.

So those are my comments that we can go to a boat now.

That motion passes five zero unanimously.

Thank you.

Next uh item, please.

The next item on our agenda is number 38.

General plan, amendment, community plan, amendment, rezone use permit, special development permit, and design review for the property at 6190 Bradshaw Road.

This is the Bar Nun Auction item.

Hello.

Good afternoon, supervisors.

Thanks for having us before lunch.

Emma Carico Associate Planner, project manager for the Barnun Auctions project.

Uh the project site consists of three parcels totaling 46.7 acres located at the Bradshaw Road and Elder Creek Road intersection.

All three are currently undeveloped.

The northern parcel is currently zoned interim agricultural reserve or IR, and the southern parcels are currently zoned light industrial or M1.

Project is located within the Vineyard Community Plan, which was adopted in 1985.

And the project is also located within the West Jackson Highway Master Plan area.

However, the project application was deemed complete on July 23rd, 2024, prior to the final hearing for the West Jackson Highway Master Plan.

Therefore, the project is not required to comply with the policies of the master plan.

The applicant proposes to develop the site with a heavy equipment auction business to support this use, a series of land use changes are requested.

Here you can see the proposed general plan and community plan amendment exhibit.

This is also consistent with the rezone for the northern parcel, which would convert the parcel from interim agricultural reserve to light industrial.

This would make the zoning and allowed uses consistent across all three parcels that constitute the project site.

Here you can see the site plan.

The site would essentially be divided into a public access area and a restricted access area.

The public area on the south here would include a 21,500 square foot office building functioning as the operation center and public reception space, as well as a parking lot with 234 spaces, including EV charging and bike parking.

The rest of the site would be restricted from public access by a seven-foot masonry wall along the entire perimeter.

Vehicular access to the restricted portion of the site would be provided via a guard house and gate, right about there, adjacent to the office building, or by a second gate off of Elder Creek Road.

The restricted area would include approximately 34,000 square foot uncovered outdoor storage area for heavy equipment intended to be auctioned, as well as a 12,800 square foot workshop for repairs and maintenance of heavy equipment and vehicles.

Here you can see the office floor plan.

The public access area would be right about there.

And too quick.

There you can see an uh elevation of the proposed office building.

Again, public access area at the front.

Shop floor plan would include open floor area for maintenance and then employee facilities as well.

Shop elevation.

So to accommodate this development, the applicant is requesting a general plan amendment for the to the land use element land use diagram for the 25.89 acre northern parcel from agricultural urban reserve to intensive industrial, a community plan amendment to the vineyard community plan for the northern parcel from industrial reserve slash surface mining to light industrial, a rezone for the northern parcel from interim agricultural reserve to light industrial, a use permit to allow heavy equipment storage, sales, rental, service, and a repair yard in the M1 light industrial zone, a special development permit for deviations from fencing, location and height standards, and a design review to determine substantial compliance with the Sacramento County Countywide Design Guidelines.

For environmental review, an initial study was prepared and released for public review on November 24th, 2025.

Impacts discussed included those listed here.

The project would the initial study determined that the project would result in a less than significant impact with the implementation of mitigation measures.

The project was considered by the design review advisory committee on September 12th, 2024, who recommended the board find the project in substantial compliance with the design guidelines.

The Vineyard Community Planning Advisory Council also considered the project on September 12th, 2024.

There was no quorum, but they did generally express support for the project.

And the planning commission met on February 9th, 2026 and recommends the board approve the requested entitlements generally.

Staff believes the project is consistent with the general plan as amended.

Vineyard community plan is amended.

It was proposed prior to the West Jackson Highway adoption.

It's consistent with the zoning ordinance with the deviations requested and would generally meet all development standards other than those deviations requested.

So at this time, planning and environmental review staff recommends the Board of Supervisors take the following actions.

Determine that the environmental analysis prepared pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act is adequate and complete, and adopt the mitigated negative declaration, adopt the mitigated mitigation monitoring and reporting program, approve a resolution authorizing an amendment to the vineyard community plan, adopt an ordinance authorizing a rezone, approve the use permit subject to findings and conditions, approve the special development permit subject to findings and conditions, and find the project in substantial compliance with the design guidelines subject to findings and conditions.

That concludes my presentation.

Thank you for the presentation.

Supervisor Hume.

Thank you, Chair.

Um concerns necessarily on this project proposal, but I do have a question regarding the um previously approved truck parking on the corner of Bradshaw and Elder Creek.

As I recall, they were kind of run through the ringer a little bit on improvements and putting up a very nice fencing in order to shield the use.

And then in the zoning map that I looked, are they still considered IR ag reserve?

This site or the previous the other one that I'm talking about on the corner.

The other project was also had a general plan amendment, community plan amendment, and rezone to general commercial.

So they were GC, that's right.

Yes, okay.

And that in part had to do with anticipated uses coming in with the West Jackson Highway Master Plan.

Okay.

Thank you very much.

Appreciate it.

All right, no other further questions.

Are there any requests to speak?

We have no request to speak, but the applicant is here to address the board.

Okay.

Mr.

Buckle.

You bought the microphone.

You're you're more than welcome to, but I'm prepared to make a motion uh to approve, so uh I would move uh staff's recommendation to to approve the uh the resolution, all the resolutions in the ordinance.

Oh do they need to be separate motions?

Sorry.

Um in our haste, I forgot to mention that the action on the general plan amendment should be reserved till after the next item because we do adopt a resolution for all general plan amendment items as one for round one for this year.

In that case, I move that the council tell me which motions I should make right now.

Thank you, Supervisor.

So you can um do one of two things.

You can either address everything except the general plan amendment now or you can wait until the conclusion of the next item and then come back and um move for approval of the staff's recommendation of the project as a whole, and that will include the general plan amendment.

So I'm gonna respect the applicant's time, and I'll make a motion to approve resolution number two, amending the vineyard community plan, and uh adopting the ordinance authorizing the rezone and approving the use permit subject to the findings and conditions and the special development uh permit and find the project in substantial compliance.

And determining that the environmental analysis is complete and adequate.

Determining that they have met uh everything required by CEQA and adopt the MMRP.

Yes, exactly.

Okay, we have a motion and a second.

Please vote.

That motion passes five zero with all members present.

All right.

Next item, please.

The next item is number 38.

Housing element amendment one and zoning code amendment, uh general plan amendment to amend 2021-2029 housing element post adoption of the countywide rezone program and a zoning ordinance amendment to comply with state use by right definitions.

All right.

Good afternoon, Chair.

Members of the board, I'm Joel Lindman, Principal Planner with Planning and Environmental Review.

And today I'm happy to present the final administrative step and a significant housing milestone for Sacramento County.

Housing Element Amendment 1 and the related zoning code amendment forwardly formally document completion of the countywide rezone program, also known as program A1, and program A2 by adding the state's use by right definition to our zoning code.

Importantly, no new rezonings or development approvals are being requested today.

This action formalizes work.

This board already completed and ensures continued compliance with state housing law.

Sorry.

For a little bit better background on the housing element, in March of 2022, the board adopted the 2021 through 2029 housing element, which is the sixth cycle housing element.

At that time, the county demonstrated adequate capacity for moderate and above moderate housing.

However, we identified a shortfall of sites for lower income units.

Rather than a minimize our obligation, the housing element established programs A1 and A2 as the primary mechanisms to address the shortfall in an equitable way without creating significant regulatory hurdles.

This was a commitment, not just compliance to ensure affordable housing has a place to be built in the county.

Yes.

Sorry to interrupt your flow here, but um can you uh educate us a little bit on uh how the state um assumes that assert that certain density uh residential density categories uh serve as surrogates for affordability?

Because I assume that they have to do that and we have to do that.

So can you explain what those thresholds are generally?

Yeah, so for a realistic development uh capacity, which we define as minimum density, um which is consistent with state law, um the county has the option for lower income category to rezone sites in the RD 30 and 40 category.

And so the minimum requirement is that uh that on lower income sites that 20 units per acre must be developed.

And because we hardline density requirements into our zoning code for RD 30, we have a minimum of 22 and a half units per acre.

And for RD 40, uh that would be 30 units per acre.

So 22 and a half units per acre is 75 percent of the zone maximum.

Okay.

But but is that should we be thinking in terms of associating that density with the minimum density with low uh quote unquote low income?

That's correct.

That's how the state defines that.

Gotcha.

All right, very good.

Thank you.

Okay.

Through program A1, the board adopted the countywide rezone program in August of 2024 ahead of our statutory deadline.

During the housing element amendment one process, staff completed a detailed true up of the land inventory confirmed the lower income shortfall before completion of program A1 was 3,215 units.

To address this, the county rezoned 74 sites, made up of 59 sites for the lower income category and 15 sites for the moderate income category.

The 59 sites rezoned for the lower income category, generated a realistic development capacity of 4,803 lower income units, eliminating the shortfall and establishing a 22 and a half percent buffer.

That buffer exceeds the 15 percent target set in our housing element and results in a surplus of 1,588 units, as you can see on this slide, which is beyond our arena for obligations.

This is not theoretical capacity that you see on this slide.

The countywide rezone program and the housing element amendment documented parcel level suitability, infrastructure availability, environmental review streamlining, and realistic development capacity, which means these rezone sites are ready for development today.

The result of the countywide rezone program was a legally defensible HCD reviewed housing inventory that exceeds our obligations program A1 and A2 work hand in hand.

So while program A1 short up our land inventory, program A2 ensures that affordable projects on inventory sites are not subject to unnecessary planning entitlement hurdles.

In short, program A2 ensures that projects providing at least 20 percent lower income units are allowed by right on inventory sites.

The county implemented this program through zoning code amendments centered around the affordable housing incentive incentive program, um also known as AHIP, which was adopted by this board back in 2022.

In practice, PER has been implementing the AHIP program since 2022.

However, HCD required that the county incorporate that precise state definition of use by right into the zoning code.

So there's no ambiguity.

So how did we get here post adoption from program A1 and Program A2?

Um, I think we talked about that earlier through a lot of coordination with HCD and the state.

Basically, following the countywide rezone uh program completion, HCD conducted to neck technical review in coordination with PER and in June 2025 directed uh county to formally amend our housing element to incorporate site level analysis for all rezone sites, update our inventory tables, and provide a supplemental assessment of fair housing, and also to update the zoning code to add that state use by right definition.

So this amendment one and zoning ordinance respond directly to HCD.

It should be noted that HCD has acknowledged the county's hard work with implementation of program A1 and A2.

Thus, this process has been a continuation of collaborative compliance and has not risen to the level of a corrective enforcement action.

After HCD's direction in June of 2025, staff prepared housing element amendment one and appendix E is the core of that amendment.

It provides detailed parcel level documentation of all of those sites I mentioned at a high level of summary of what appendix E shows is that all rezoned sites are appropriately zoned, adequately sized, available, and a suitable, that infrastructure capacity is adequate, that environmental constraints were addressed, that the identified realistic development capacity that we identified just talked about is defensible, and that affirmatively furthering fair housing obligations pursuant to AB 686 were meaningfully incorporated.

In short, that AFFH analysis concluded that at least 30% of our lower income rezone sites are located in highest high or moderate resource areas.

Sites are distributed across 10 communities, planning areas reducing over concentration.

The rezone improved access to job centers, public transit corridors, schools, parks, and recreation facilities, and food resources.

The program also does not exacerbate patterns of racial or economic segregation.

The rezone does not displace deed restricted affordable housing, and relatedly, overall displacement risk is very low due to the high percentage of vacant sites that we rezone.

And finally, program A1 aligns directly with the county's broader fair housing objectives that are already identified in Chapter 11 of our housing element.

In addition to appendix E work, we also trued up that land inventory so we have a very accurate baseline supply of and final rezone sites are in our inventory.

This amendment ensures that the housing element fully reflects the work completed with the countywide rezone program.

The zoning code amendment was a lot simpler.

We updated section 1.7.3a of the zoning code to integrate the state's definition of use by right.

As mentioned, use by right applies to qualifying affordable projects which provide at least 20% affordable units, which were previously on a fourth, fifth, or sixth cycle inventory.

This does not reduce oversight, it does not expand entitlements beyond what you've already adopted, and projects must still comply with objective development and design standards.

As noted earlier, in practice, PER has been complying with this since 2022, but this action ensures the zoning code aligns exactly with the government code.

This slide summarizes HCD's coordination status uh with the county since June of 2025.

HCD has reviewed amendment one through three rounds of technical assistance.

Housing element amendment one was posted for a seven-day public review period as required by state law, which was completed in November of 2025.

No comments were received uh during that public review period or to date.

The final draft amendment was submitted to HCD in late November and on January 23rd, HCD provided a letter confirming its findings that once amendment one and zoning code amendment are adopted and submitted by the board, the housing element will continue to comply with state law.

So the action here today is the last step before the county can submit to HCD for final recertification of our housing element.

We expect uh from coordination with HD that we will be hearing back with confirmation of recertification in early March.

This project was heard by the planning commission on January 12, 2026.

There was no one in uh uh attendance from the public and there was no public comment received.

After some deliberation and questions uh about housing element implementation in general, the commission voted unanimously 5-0 to recommended approval and adoption.

The findings before you are required findings and a summary uh in summary, they confirm that the housing element as amendment amended meets government code section 65583, that our housing element and zoning code remain consistent with the general plan, that the countywide rezone fulfilled our RENA obligation, that the prop proper noticing requirements were met, and that the zoning code amendment is consistent with state law.

Again, this is not policy uh new policy direction.

It is formal recognition of the work already completed and a reaffirmation of the county's commitment to lawful, equitable, and responsible housing planning.

One moment Joel.

Supervisor Cerna?

I can wait to the end.

Okay.

I'm I'm there.

Um with that, staff respectfully recommends that the board first recognize that the project is exempt from CEQA pursuant to CEQA guidelines section 15061B3.

Second, adopt that resolution for both general plan amendments uh but amending the housing element and for the land use uh decision that you just heard, and third, approve the ordinance amending the zoning code to add the state definition uh of use by right, and finally direct staff to submit the package to HTD.

So with that, that concludes my presentation.

But I'm available for questions.

Thank you, Joel.

I like your speed.

Supervisor CERN.

Uh I'll second that.

Um I mentioned earlier that I I would have something to say and share at the conclusion of our meeting under supervisor comments, but I I feel compelled to maybe explain a little bit of where I'm going because I think it's relevant to this action.

So I have more of a procedural question here.

Um I guess uh I find I guess we're right at the last moment before we submit.

And if you look back, there's been a lot of review, refining, uh coordination with HCD, getting some of their initial feedback, doing the same, rinse, repeat, right.

So what I am going to suggest and ask generally from staff is that given what we just heard relative to the the item before this, or two items before this, um, the appeal.

Uh as was noted, I believe by the chair, she pointed out that uh in her research of uh past appeals, they uh mostly, if not all, uh at least in recent history, had to do with cell towers.

And this was the this is uh an appeal that uh we received for a variety of reasons, we heard, uh involving housing and not just housing, but housing uh based on the current zoning without an interest in upzoning, you know, pressing the density envelope, seeking density bonuses, um, and because to Supervisor Hume's point, the the uh partially from or largely from the State of California, we're uh getting increasing pressure with every session uh almost to um continue to um look favorably upon um density, which I have no uh general issue with, but what I do have an issue with is avoiding the kind of kind of um hearings, quite frankly, that we had uh two items ago.

And what I mean by that is that I don't in concept, uh an individual or a group of individuals, call it a neighborhood who is opposed to a housing proposal for their own reasons, some of which or all of which maybe don't even find their way into legal finding status, which I got the sense that this was one of those cases.

Um can use go through the CPAC, our own CPAC, which is our construct as a county, um, at uh our cost, at the county's cost, because it's a CPAC, not an individual, uh, when we would trigger the cost uh recovery measures and uh to the tune of I think 4200.

To me, I don't want that to become a a tool uh for uh to uh to um challenge what we're trying to do, which is be thoughtful about the fact that we are way behind the eight ball on housing.

Um so I think it's time for us to consider putting uh into policy, not just kind of leaving it to chance, uh the fact that maybe uh we need some unique restrictions on the ability to appeal well within the guideposts of of the law, of course.

Um those you know those those uh continued applications that we're gonna see for years, well after I'm uh gone from this day is uh to come in and just do what we saw today, which is an applicant um wants to come in with the the zoning as is to to do what I think is the right thing.

And it and it abides by our you know thoughtfulness in planning our general plan and our community plans and applying the zoning code.

Um and so my question then for staff as it relates to this issue is there do we think that that policy um should if it's the will of this board, you bring back some recommendations, should be forgive the pun housed in the housing element and reiterated separately so that HCD can see that the county of Sacramento, again, if it's the will of my colleagues myself, takes so seriously the intent to plan for and promote and welcome um the uh addition of housing to our housing inventory in this county, that we're actually willing to take a hard look at our own policies for how we work with advisory bodies so that uh housing doesn't fall victim to kind of organized NIMBYism with the plow blade being our own CPAC.

So I'm hoping that's making some sense.

Um I guess the first question is do we think that the housing element could benefit from having such a policy at least referenced in in it?

Um and if if the answer is no, we don't think it's necessary, I'll accept that.

But I'm still going to be interested in knowing um what our uh policy um options are from staff relative to the fundamental question I have before about the CPACs.

Can I can I just make a comment?

Because I I agree a hundred percent with what um Supervisor Cerna had just said.

That was actually what drove me down to work with Todd and Kimber this week.

It was we do we see a lot, I mean, do we have we historically seen a lot of these appeals?

Because if they go through the CPACs, then we then it it's no charge.

And to me, I would I would I would put that when the laws are clear.

But one thing I learned in the meantime, it was do can a C if it's on the agenda for a CPAC and they don't have a quorum, does it move forward?

And the answer was yes.

Like it won't delay the project.

The second issue that I found is that there's uh um a bit of knowledge difference between a CPAC member, a planning commissioner, and then us at the Board of Supervisors.

And so it made me question do CPAC members get the training they need to understand these state laws that we deal with?

And so, yes, there's training, but here's where I what I discovered, but they don't show up.

So now what we have is a deficiency of knowledge at the CPAC level where they can help manage and educate some of the members of the public and their residents and their neighbors about issues that are happening.

So I I I think what Supervisor CERN that here has uh has brought up is a very important topic, so that we don't end up with um situations like what we had today where they're they they've gone through the levels and now they're here and now they're taking uh you know time only to hear what they could have heard back at the CPAC level.

Yeah.

I'm gonna take a shot at that really quickly.

Um one, Supervisor Sorna and Supervisor Rodriguez, I believe we have um housing element program policies that speak or programs in place that speak to this already.

Tell me how.

What's that?

Tell me how.

I'm gonna I'm looking um to my colleague if you could maybe bring that down here for me.

Um but um the other thing is is that uh we certainly uh uh have a vested interest today to move our housing element forward uh soon because we have some um uh funding that is in jeopardy if we we are not recertified by the uh beginning of March.

It's not specific report on it.

Okay, I can I can read that.

Oh, yeah, thank you.

And then the other thing is is that um we are gonna be we're in the cycle, the sixth cycle now.

We are beginning um scoping the seventh cycle at the end of this year.

And so those new programs potentially could be added if if we need some more specificity in the housing element specifically.

But for the um how the housing element speaks to it now, we have a program um B3, which is expediting and aiding processing of affordable housing projects, and this speaks to the county will expedite planning entitlements and building permits to aid developers of affordable housing projects by prior prioritizing them with reasonable time frames to ensure meeting applicants' funding due dates.

The county will explore creation of programs to subsidized pre-application meetings, which we actually have delivered um this month, or actually, I'm sorry, last month.

Um, and I think that we could expand upon that.

Uh, that doesn't that absolutely does not capture what I'm suggesting.

I'm just letting you know.

I want to I'd like to hear from Mr.

Defonte.

I see he's in the queue through the chair.

Yes.

So Dave DeFonte, Deputy County Executive.

Um if it's the will of the board to change CPAC related procedures and say, you know, eliminate the free.

I'm just maybe I'm putting words in your mouth not intending to be.

I asked for alternatives.

That's why I don't have I'm not passing out a suggestion here.

So just by way of example, if we were to eliminate the free appeal for housing related projects, right?

And that's the will of your board.

We can do that as you noted, either with or without any mention in the housing element.

I I would say personally, I'm always reluctant to touch the housing element unless need be.

Um and frankly, I think you know, part of the reason why we're here today is compliance with with state law, but what's before you is this isn't intended to be flippant, but you know, somewhat of a paperwork exercise, right?

We're not really changing anything, we're just introducing new information into the housing element.

Um good information, but it it does cause a ton of work for staff.

So one of my concerns is if we introduced you know something specific relative to the CPACs as a program in the housing element, and then you know the will of the board was not to enact it, then we're reporting back to HCD about why we didn't implement that program, right?

So I I guess my humble suggestion would be if you want to take that action or have or send us off to explore it and bring it back to you, we're happy to do so.

If you then implement it, we can report back to HCD by way of our annual progress reports to say look what we did, right?

So it doesn't have to be a program.

Okay.

I mean you've answered my question.

It was simply because this items in front of us right now that occurred to me, like, well, they're they're fairly related.

I need to kind of explain myself in terms of what I'm interested in.

Maybe others, it sounds like at least our chair is also interested in.

Um whether or not that's relevant to the 11th hour of our housing element now.

And if the answer is don't want to touch it, I accept that and no challenge for me whatsoever.

Okay.

I think I've said enough that you probably all get the idea what I'm interested in.

Maybe others are interested for you to come back and give us some some options.

Um so I'm not gonna belabor it later.

You've heard enough from me.

Um I'll just say I appreciate all those the staff work to um gingerly uh and carefully thoughtfully um uh get us to a place where ready to submit.

So I'll leave it.

And we are happy to bring back options and again we are also happy should the board you know take that action or any other sort of pro-housing related action.

We're also happy to take that credit by way of the annual you know, progress report to HCD and other mechanisms.

Yeah, that that's fine.

My point was Dave, is that I I think it's important for the state to understand the disposition of the county relative to housing in general, and this could be just an addition if if again, if we end up adopting something months from now relative to the suggestion that somehow it's conveyed to them that this is a recent policy shift for us because of now experience and the fact that we want to avoid it in the future.

So Supervisor Hume.

Thank you, Chair.

Uh, first of all, I don't want to get too far in the weeds on the suggestion given that it wasn't technically agendized to discuss the role of CPACs, but I will say that I had uh posed previously the idea uh to our planning director of making more decisions ministerial once we've had the larger policy uh framework discussion and in in order to streamline our processes, which I think it is in keeping with generally what you're trying to do, which is remove uh some of these artificial uh barriers uh and streamline the production of housing.

Toward that end, I want to ask specifically about the the the item that we're hearing uh today because you great presentation, you did uh go through it thoroughly, but I just want to make sure that uh this does nothing to change any um allocation identification, uh the intent behind any parcel within the county.

This is simply codifying uh something that has already been considered, already been floated and and considered as an inventory.

That is absolutely correct.

I see a nodding head correct.

And then um, I that's that's really it then.

So then it's just a matter of uh amending the general plan in order to codify that.

So thank you.

All right, are there any uh requests to speak from the public?

We have no request to speak here on item 39.

I will entertain a motion so I would move to um find that we have met the CEQA provisions.

Let's see, there's uh three things we need to do here.

Just move staff to recommendation.

Okay, and that will include the the um general plan amendment from the previous item as well.

That will look that will include number 39.

All of the item all of the recording.

Okay.

All right, then I do that.

All right, I got a motion and a second, please vote.

Passes unanimously 5-0.

All right.

And so now we will go back to number 38.

And I will entertain a motion.

Uh I would go ahead and move uh move a resolution amending the general plan to include item 38.

Second.

All right, we have a motion and a second, please vote.

That portion of item 38 passes 50.

All right.

Next item, please.

Next item is number 40, homeless and housing system partnership model update.

Good afternoon, members of the board.

Emily Halkin, your director of the Department of Homeless Services and Housing.

And I'm here to very quickly bring you up to speed on the work that we've been underway in the past few months, but really tying all the work we've been underway in the past year and get some direction for some next steps.

Um as you all know, we've been working for well over a year, um, really importantly with our community partners, including the cities, the continuum of care, and many of our community-based organizations, to work to develop a model for how we organize and work around homelessness and housing that really reflects local conditions, um, builds off the strengths of our existing partnerships, and thoughtfully considers future roles and responsibilities for different folks in this space.

Um as evidence of that, this has been an iterative process.

I've been back in front of you a couple times already making some changes, reflecting that input that we received from community during the way.

As a reminder, um I came formally to the board twice to seek your input on different models.

It changed along the way.

We've also been to the Continuum of Care Board as an informational item only, but offered ourselves and made ourselves very available for future meetings with them, their governance committee, their executive committee.

We've met with the six cities in formal open session twice now.

Um of course we had our very large joint meeting and the report prepared by Mosaic Strategies last October, and many, many meetings that are ongoing with our uh staff partners at the Continuum of Care as well as all of the cities.

Um in December, the last time the board took action on this, as you will recall, you uh approved unanimously um what we call it a preferred option, which was to reconstitute the Continuum of Care Board to be um the majority elected officials, but also to make purposeful space for community input.

Um but you also have uh authorize staff to work on an alternative option should the continuum of care not be willing to reconstitute itself.

So at this point, we have gone back to all of the cities over the past couple of months in January and February.

Um and if you haven't followed um the cities of Galt, Elk Grove, Rancho Cordova, and Folsom all uh voted in support of the county's recommended option.

I believe all those votes were unanimous.

Um the city of Citrus Heights took a neutral stance, um, and then the City of Sacramento um directed their staff to pursue a joint powers authority.

So now that we have completed um meetings with the cities and we have the majority of cities interested in pursuing what the county's recommended option is, our last box to check to determine our work as staff is to get a formal vote by the Continuum of Care Board.

And so what we're asking for today is in addition to any additional input you may have after hearing your colleagues in the city's uh conversations to also uh submit a formal request to the continuum of care chair to agendize the county's model and presentation at their April meeting for a formal vote.

With that vote, we will then know if we are going to move forward with the preferred option, which again was your recommendation as well as four of your cities, um, or if we're going to continue pivot and move on the alternative option.

There is a draft letter attached to your board um item um that we would recommend using and I'm happy to take any questions.

Supervisor Desmond.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thanks, Emily, and thank you for all the work you've been doing on this.

It's been a struggle from so many different angles, obviously.

Um I'm just curious, Citrus Seitz, can you remind me again?

What is their uh thinking on and staying neutral?

Is it because of legislation and the impact they might have on that, or I'm just where are they coming from?

Um they didn't give a reason in open session, but and and David was there with me.

I my inference was at the time perhaps they were um they were thinking that a decision on the county's model um and the uh conversation they were having on SB 802 were mutually exclusive.

Umb in their comments um were leaning towards support of the county's model, but then ultimately they made a decision to go neutral.

They didn't share necessarily the rationale, but I sort of inferred from some of their comments that they were um they were thinking that they wanted to focus more on the SB 802 conversation.

Okay.

And we know uh that for certain with the City of Sacramento, their approach, I guess the motion they approved, it would absolutely preclude them from working with us on this model.

Was it in other words, was it was it a JPA exclusively?

Um it, I mean, I did not hear that they said their staff can't continue to work with us, but the direction to their staff was to come forward with a completely separate option, which was a joint powers authority.

Which to me, when I watched it, I understood it as they are interested in a JPA, but not interested in moving forward.

Yeah, because they only took action on that, you could certainly infer that.

Yes.

I think they were given the option.

Um, first of all, I just want to say thank you, Emily, for all the work.

You you know, you uh I I that we have put so much emphasis um in the past year that I have been here on on uh on this homeless issue and identifying a model that will work best that will bring people together, and then you know we get a wrench thrown into the mix, and we continue to move forward, and I I I'm just encouraged that we're continuing to move forward on um uh finding uh uh a format that works for all of us.

But I I just got to say that I it is a little bit disappointing that we have to bring an item before the board to write a letter to the COC to please put this item on their agenda for the April uh what is it, April meeting.

It's to me it just shows the lack of leadership and the lack of uh attention to the issues related to collaborating and and and moving forward together.

Um so I just wanted to state that.

Supervisor Hume.

Well, a friend of mine once said nothing sharpens the mind like a deadline.

And uh I just find it ironic that the county, which is the recipient of so much blame for the dysfunction in our homelessness response.

We are the ones that seem to be operating with a sense of urgency.

And to have to, and to the chair's point, to have to send a letter saying, tell us yes, tell us no, but make a decision in order to keep the progress moving forward.

Um it's just it it's it's a little sad that uh that that um effort doesn't get recognized that we are trying to act with a sense of urgency.

We are trying to move the ball down the field, and people just want to kick the tires and wring their hands and think about it, and the thinking time is over.

So um go forth, prosper.

Is that a motion?

That is a motion.

And I'll and I'll second that motion too.

And I and I think uh I mean, we could certainly we could ask two of us sign a letter to the COC to ask to put it on the agenda.

I think the thought was obviously if it comes from all five of us unanimously, that has a heck of a lot more weight.

That that was the intent.

I mean, to the supervisor's point, I sit on the COC board, the two of you do as well.

I could as individual member, but we did feel like because this is such an important topic that the board has really been leaning into and trying to move that it really carried a little bit more weight if the entire board um signed on.

And I also owed you a uh a follow-up anyhow, so it yeah, yeah.

The other option, sorry, supervisor.

Um the other option would be for me to send the letter over, but we felt that this had a lot more weight coming from the five of you and uh continuing to apply pressure not only to you me and uh the staff here, but also uh trying to get an answer so we can figure out what direction we want to go with the CLCs.

Yeah, I prefer the letter being from all five of us and um you know that with the sense of urgency, and just as a reminder that people continue to die in the street from homelessness and issues, and so it's um yeah, I like the idea of all five of us.

All right, so you have a motion and a second.

And are there any public comments for this item?

No speakers on this item.

Okay, please vote.

That item passes unanimously 5-0.

All right.

Next item, please.

Right.

The next item on the agenda are uh nominations.

So the following nominations are being continued to March 10th, 2026.

Those are the adult and aging commission, the consumedness area community planning advisory council, Delta Citizens Municipal Advisory Council, uh Equal Employment Opportunity Advisory Committee, In-Home Supportive Services Advisory Committee, Material Child and Adolescent Health Advisory Board, Sacramento County Commission on the Status of Women and Girls, Southeast Area Community Planning Advisory Council.

And the following list of nominations are being continued to March 24th, 2026.

We have the Antelope Community Planning Advisory Council, the Art and Arcade Community Planning Advisory Council, California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation Citizens Advisory Committee, County Service Area No.

4C Delta, Local Child Care Planning and Development Council, Nathomas Community Planning Advisory Council, Orangevale Community Planning Advisory Council, Public Financing Authority of the County of Sacramento, Air Park Enhanced Infrastructure Financing District.

And the rest are for today's action.

First on the list is Children's Coalition.

There are 26 seats.

Yes, I did double check.

And yeah, 26 seats is what we have.

Wow.

Okay.

And so do you I think uh Chiefs recommend nominating Ziegrid Ziggy Robison?

And then please continue the remainder to uh March 24th.

Thank you very much.

And next on the list, we have the Cordova Community Planning Advisory Council.

There are five seats.

Uh two District Three nominations and three district five nominations.

Please continue the District 3 ones to April 7th.

Thank you.

And District 5 would like to continue ours to uh April 7th.

Thank you very much.

Next on the list is the County Planning Commission.

There is one District 3 nomination.

Please nominate Mike Rokenstein and wave process.

Second.

Thank you.

And that nomination is waived 50.

Thank you.

Moving on to the county service area 4B, Slowhouse, Wilton Casumis.

There are three seats, one district four nomination, and two district five nominations.

District 4, please continue to March 10th.

Thank you.

For the Slough House, Wilton Casumnus uh County.

Thank you for the district.

District 5 would like to reappoint Kelly Nelson and continue the remainder to March 24th.

Thank you very much.

Developmental disabilities planning and advisory council.

There are 13 seats.

All right, Chiefs recommend reappointing Bonnie Douglas.

And Chiefs recommend nominating Kara Green.

And please continue the rest to March 24th.

Perfect.

Thank you.

Next up, we have the Elk Grove Casumness Cemetery District.

There are two seats, one district two nomination, and one district five nomination.

Continue District 2 to March 24th.

Thank you.

Same for District 5.

Continue to March 24th, please.

Thank you.

We have the Gold Arno Cemetery District.

There's one District 5 nomination.

Please continue it to March 10th.

Well do, thank you.

Two District 2 nominations, two District 4 nominations, and two District 5 nominations.

For District 2, uh nominate Johnny Vang and continue the remainder to March 24th.

Thank you.

For District 4, please continue to March 10th.

Thank you.

And District 5 would like to continue to March 24th.

Thank you.

Next we have the Sacramento Environmental Commission.

There is one County of Sacramento appointee.

Please continue to March 10th.

Thank you very much.

There is one District 5 nomination.

Please continue to March 24th.

Thank you.

And that concludes our nominations today.

Great.

Next item, please.

Next item on our list is 42 County Executive Comments.

Thank you, Todd.

If Metro Cable could put up a picture for me.

In the spirit of uh last time, uh we honored one individual employee.

This time we're honoring a group of them.

Wow.

Um, an office.

So um the Office of the Public Defender recently received the challenge award from the California State Associations of Counties for their juvenile pretrial program.

This was last, I believe it was last Wednesday night.

We we um had that event down here in Sacramento.

The program helps reduce youth incarcerations by focusing on support instead of punishment.

Youth and families are connected with voluntary services before their case is decided.

And this helps with uh leaving cust the youth leaving custody sooners sooner, uh, repeat uh reduces repeat and um involvement with the justice system and improves outcomes for the families.

They've seen a reduction of approximately 50 percent.

This is a uh program that was put together that was applied for through the um through public defender, uh about 3.1, if I remember correctly, a $3.1 million dollar grant that um um provided this service for three years, and so they've been incredibly successful on this.

So I wanted to just recognize the county's commitment in helping youth and people succeed in strengthening our communities.

And I wanted to congratulate Amanda here pictured here, uh, and her team, but I also wanted to uh for their outstanding work.

But I also wanted to uh give special thanks to Ruben Marino, who is the supervisor and assistant public defender and the spokesperson for this.

He's there centered.

For me, he was uh allowed uh 20 words, I think it was 20 words for his acceptance speech, and and he exceeded that, and we were very proud of proud of him to get the message out.

And also in his assistant, um assistant public defender, David Bell also takes a lead role in this and listening and talking with Ruben and David, they're incredibly proud of this program, and the success has just been phenomenal as it affects the youth and continues to reduce uh youth incarceration.

So thank you for your time.

And oh, also uh Supervisor Cerna, or no, I'm sorry, Supervisor Desmond and Supervisor Rodriguez was there.

I don't see Supervisor Ragrius in there.

Do I?

I'm in the blue.

Light blue.

Oh, I know I'm there you are.

I'm wearing a light I'm wearing a light color.

I mean, the light color.

Do we need to order an eye tuck for you?

Hey.

Um but uh I know she was there.

I wasn't sure she was in the picture, but I wanted to thank you for also taking time to be there.

So thank you.

All right.

Next item.

Next item is number 43, supervisor comments, reports, and announcements.

All right, I'm going to um make some comments, and then we have um a couple of adjournments.

Um first I want to recognize um uh Black History Month.

I want to take a moment to highlight Black History Month, honoring the contributions and achievements of Black Americans here in our county and across the country.

Black History Month is an opportunity not only to reflect on our nation's history, but to recognize the leaders, entrepreneurs, educators, public servants, artists, and families who continue to shape the fabric of our communities every single day, from the civil rights movement to small business ownership, from public service to the arts.

Black Americans have strengthened our democracy, expanded opportunity, and enriched our culture in profound and lasting ways.

I also want to take a moment to recognize and celebrate lunar new year and extend my warmest wishes to all who are observing this important holiday in our community and around the world.

Lunar New Year is also a reminder of the importance of cultural understanding.

And so Gong Hey Fa Choi, everyone.

I think that I've that is like probably the um second language next to Spanish that I learned.

I learned that very young.

Um I also want to uh recognize a couple of individuals.

Um outstanding student achievements.

Mackenzie Miller and Emma Martell of Castle Roble High School competed in the CIF California Interscholastic Federation Masters Tournament and have advanced to the CIF State Wrestling Championship.

So congrats.

And also to our real Linda High School chairleading team who is headed to the USA Spirit Nationals.

Um then we have a couple of uh uh adjournments in memory of I also want to recog uh state Robert Stagger and Meredith Rosenberg who contributed to our uh Bratshaw Shelter and Supervisor Desmond has one too.

Oh, and then I oh sorry, do I'm sorry, I there's Patrick Kennedy in the queue.

So can we do this after?

Sorry.

Thank you.

Thank you, Chair.

Um, just want to uh ask that the uh I've had an opportunity on the MECO program, the Miko program, which is a microenterprise home kitchen operation to meet with uh uh statewide and local advocates, uh, but also take a look and see the experience that other counties have had who have opted in, and um I'm now comfortable uh to with asking that if staff could bring forward a proposed resolution um then which the County of Sacramento would opt into the program.

Absolutely, Supervisor will look at that.

I think there's some outreach we can do too for that also, so we'll work on that also.

Right, thank you.

All right, Supervisor Desmond.

Okay, thank you, Madam Chair.

Today I'd like to adjourn in memory of Mr.

and Mrs.

Fair Oaks, Warren and Janet McWilliams, who passed away on February 11th, 2026 and November 18th, 2025, respectively.

Janet was born in Sacramento on May 23rd, 1938, and lived her entire life in Fair Oaks.

She attended San Juan High School and graduated from CSU Sacramento.

Warren was a veteran of the Korean War, served as Assistant Postmaster General of Fair Oaks, was president of the Fair Oaks Rotary in 1987, and the Fair Oaks Honorary Mayor in 1997.

The couple met and married in 1957, sharing 67 years together, traveling with friends, playing bridge, and devoting their time to their shared love of Fair Oaks.

Their dedication to the Fair Oaks community, Fair Oaks community was at the forefront of everything they did.

They were involved in almost every Fair Oaks organization, including the Fair Oaks Rotary Club, Inner Wheel Club of Fair Oaks, the Fair Oaks Theater Festival, Women's Thursday Club, Fair Oaks Foundation for Leisure in the Arts, the Fair Oaks Historical Society, and the Fair Oaks Chamber of Commerce.

Nothing was happening in Fair Oaks that they weren't part of, and I can attest to that.

All right, we will now adjourn in their memory, and we will adjourn to close session.

Wow, 67 years.