CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Tuesday, January 27, 2026
5:30 PM – Special Meeting/Work Session
American River Room
City Hall
2729 Prospect Park Drive, Rancho Cordova
How to Observe or Listen to the Meeting:
• Online via Zoom: https://cityofranchocordova.zoom.us/j/81630466928 • Webinar ID: 816 3046 6928
• By phone: +1 669 900 6833 or +1 253 215 8782
• Webinar ID: 816 3046 6928
Public Comment
Members of the public who wish to address the City Council may do so in person during the meeting by completing and submitting a Speaker Card to the City Clerk.
Members of the public who wish to provide public comment via email will need to submit comments to [email protected] no later than 2:00 p.m. on Tuesday, January 27, 2026. Written comments received no later than 2:00 p.m. will be distributed to the Council, filed in the record, and will not be read aloud. All comments submitted later than 2:00 p.m. will be distributed to the Council.
If you have questions related to the City Council Meeting, please contact the City Clerk’s Office at (916) 851-8720 before Tuesday, January 27, 2026, at 2:00 p.m.
AGENDA
1. SPECIAL MEETING - CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL
Council Members Linda Budge, Joe Little, Siri Pulipati, David Sander, and Mayor Garrett
Rancho Cordova City Council - AGENDA
Special Meeting of Tuesday, January 27, 2026
Gatewood
2. PUBLIC COMMENT
At a special meeting, citizens wishing to address the Council for any matter on the agenda may do so at the time the matter is discussed. Under the provisions of the California Government Code, the City Council is prohibited from discussing or taking action on any item not on the agenda.
3. SPECIAL MEETING
3.1. Subject: Update and Discussion Regarding Countywide Homelessness Shared Governance.
Recommendation: Receive presentation from County of Sacramento staff related to the recommended model for Continuum of Care (CoC) Board restructuring and provide feedback to staff.
3.2. Subject: Update and Direction on Senate Bill (SB) 802 (Ashby).
Recommendation: Provide direction to staff to remain neutral on SB 802 with the proposed amendments.
3.3. Subject: Active Transportation Plan Update: Approaching Final Recommendations.
Recommendation: Receive a presentation from staff on the Draft Active Transportation Plan and provide direction on the final recommendations. Providing direction to staff would guide the finalization of the plan in preparation for final adoption in spring of 2026.
3.4. Subject: Discussion and Direction Regarding the Housing Components of the Former Mills Crossing Project.
Recommendation: Receive presentation and provide feedback.
4. ADJOURNMENT
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
Special Meetings listed below are subject to change/cancellation without further notice.
Public documents related to items on the open session portion of this agenda, which are distributed to the City Council less than 24 hours prior to the meeting, shall be available for public inspection at the time the documents are distributed to the Council. Documents are available for inspection at the City Clerk's office located in Rancho Cordova City Hall.
The agenda items are accessible on the City’s website at www.cityofranchocordova.org on Thursdays or Fridays prior to the Special City Council Meeting.
UPCOMING MEETINGS
February 2, 2026 4:00 PM Special Meeting/5:30 PM Regular Meeting February 10, 2026 9:00 AM Special Meeting/Work Session
February 17, 2026 5:30 PM Regular Meeting
March 2, 2026 4:00 PM Special Meeting/5:30 PM Regular Meeting March 16, 2026 5:30 PM Regular Meeting
Rancho Cordova City Council - AGENDA
Special Meeting of Tuesday, January 27, 2026
March 24, 2026 5:30 PM Special Meeting/Work Session
April 6, 2026 4:00 PM Special Meeting/5:30 PM Regular Meeting April 28, 2026 5:30 PM Special Meeting/Work Session
If you have any technical questions related to the agenda items, please contact City Hall at (916) 851- 8700.
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need a disability-related modification or accommodation, including auxiliary aids or services, to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Clerk’s Office at (916) 851-8720 at least 48 hours prior to the meeting.
CERTIFICATION OF POSTING OF AGENDA
I, Stacy Leitner, City Clerk for the City of Rancho Cordova, declare that the foregoing agenda for the January 27, 2026, Special Meeting of the Rancho Cordova City Council was posted and available for review on January 22, 2026, at City Hall of the City of Rancho Cordova, 2729 Prospect Park Drive, Rancho Cordova, California, 95670. The agenda is also available on the city website at www.cityofranchocordova.org.
Signed January 22, 2026, at Rancho Cordova, California.
Stacy Leitner, CMC
City Clerk
MEMORANDUM
City Council Staff Report - Page 1 of 3
ITEM 3.1.
DATE: January 27, 2026
TO: Honorable Mayor and Council Members
FROM: Stefan Heisler, Housing Manager
SUBJECT: UPDATE AND DISCUSSION REGARDING COUNTYWIDE
HOMELESSNESS SHARED GOVERNANCE
RECOMMENDATION
Receive presentation from County of Sacramento staff related to the recommended model for Continuum of Care (CoC) Board restructuring and provide feedback to staff.
RESULT OF RECOMMENDED ACTION
The City Council will receive a presentation on the County of Sacramento's recommended Continuum of Care (CoC) Board restructuring. Feedback and direction from the City Council is requested regarding both topics. County staff is presenting the recommended changes to the CoC to each jurisdiction in the County of Sacramento and will take the feedback received back to the Board of Supervisors for next steps.
BACKGROUND
On October 6, 2025, the City Council received a presentation on a proposed county partnership structure for housing and homelessness in the County of Sacramento. The county proposal at that time recommended creation of a new body, the Sacramento Homeless and Housing Board (SHHB), that would consist primarily of elected officials and serve as the Continuum of Care (CoC) Board, with subcommittees consisting of community members providing input to the SHHB on key policy areas.
On October 28, 2025, a joint meeting of the Sacramento County Board of Supervisors, the City of Sacramento City Council and mayors/councilmembers of five of the six surrounding cities (Citrus Heights, Elk Grove, Folsom, Galt, and Rancho Cordova) was held. As part of that meeting, Mosaic Solutions and Advocacy (Mosaic) facilitated a discussion with the elected officials that centered on partnership approaches. While input varied, for the five surrounding cities, consistent themes were shared:
• The surrounding cities want to retain local control over land use decisions and funding allocations for projects in their cities.
• The surrounding cities recognize that the number of people experiencing homelessness in their jurisdiction is relatively small compared to the City of Sacramento and the County of Sacramento, and they all have taken steps to address these needs and
City Council Staff Report - Page 2 of 3
impacts locally. They do not want to lose the ability to develop more localized responses that address the unique situations and needs in their cities. • While some of the surrounding cities have dedicated staff for housing and homeless efforts, they do not have large departments and worry about their ability to participate in a new structure and worry they will be asked to provide administrative support (either staffing or funding).
A summary of the October 28, 2025, joint meeting and Mosaic’s findings and recommendations are attached to this report. Following the October 28 joint meeting, Mosaic has been meeting with the County of Sacramento, the City of Sacramento, and Sacramento Steps Forward (SSF) to revisit the SHHB structure previously presented to the Board and Councils, incorporate input provided by the elected officials from the discussions at the joint meeting, and consider Mosaic’s recommendations as follows:
1. Recommended Option - Recommend the CoC Board is reconstituted to include a majority of elected officials, but also includes seats for decision making community leaders in sectors impacting homeless and housing efforts. This recommendation brings together leadership and policy direction under one Board, ensuring more direct involvement of elected officials, and having one board as the primary driver of policy and coordination.
2. Alternative Option - Alternatively, should the CoC Board not wish to reconstitute their board, Sacramento City and Sacramento County should move forward with the creation of a new board, the SHHB, as a body of only elected officials, driving policy and coordination for programs administered in the cities and the county. In this scenario, there would be two convening spaces — the CoC Board and the SHHB, and the CoC would continue to maintain the federally mandated functions of a CoC. There could be some overlap of participation, but there is no formal relationship.
3. In addition to the changes to the structure, the City of Sacramento and the County of Sacramento should enter into a new or updated agreement that builds on the success of the 2022 Partnership Agreement while expanding its scope to address the changing landscape.
4. The county should work with the other surrounding cities to develop individual agreements that define roles, responsibilities and shared goals.
At the Sacramento County Board of Supervisors meeting on December 9, 2025, Mosaic’s report and county recommendations were presented, with the discussion focused on the partnership model recommendation. The Board of Supervisors unanimously approved a motion to direct county staff to pursue the Recommended Option to reconstitute the CoC Board with a majority of elected officials if the other cities and CoC are amenable.
The CoC Board has also been having discussions around the partnership model. The CoC Board chair presented an option to the CoC Board at their December 10, 2025 meeting similar to the Alternative Option that ultimately did not pass. Since that time, the CoC Board chair, vice- chair, and SSF staff have been engaging with the County of Sacramento and the City of Sacramento on developing an option with enough details to address the concerns of CoC Board members. Those conversations are on-going and the CoC Board anticipates taking the item back to the CoC Board for consideration in February 2026.
City Council Staff Report - Page 3 of 3
On January 13, 2026, the Sacramento City Council met to discuss the proposed options and directed staff to further investigate options for a joint powers authority model rather than move forward with the Recommended Option to reconstitute the CoC Board. Different JPA options may include the model proposed by SB 802 and additional alternatives. With the City of Sacramento moving in this differing direction, it is unclear at this time how that will impact the county's recommended CoC Board restructuring efforts.
Attached to this report is a visual that shows the county's Recommended Option, Alternative Option, the current model where the CoC is independent of the local elected bodies, and a Joint Powers Authority model.
NEXT STEPS
County staff will take feedback received on the CoC recommended restructuring back to the Board of Supervisors for further discussion. Staff will continue to monitor and collaborate with the other jurisdictions as the City of Sacramento investigates additional JPA options.
FISCAL IMPACT AND FUNDING SOURCE
There is no fiscal impact.
ATTACHMENT(S)
1. Sacramento Countywide Homelessness Summit Report and Recommendations
2. Options for Partnership Approach
3. Presentation
Sacramento Countywide Homelessness Summit on October 28, 2025 Report and Recommendations
by Mosaic Solutions & Advocacy
Overview
On October 28, 2025, the Sacramento Countywide Homelessness Summit (Summit) was held at the Library Galleria in downtown Sacramento. This historic meeting brought together the Sacramento County Board of Supervisors, Sacramento City Council, and representatives from suburban cities including Elk Grove, Citrus Heights, Folsom, Rancho Cordova, and Galt to discuss collaborative approaches to addressing homelessness. A complete list of attendees can be found in the appendix of this report. The meeting featured presentations on federal and state funding impacts, progress and possibilities in addressing homelessness within Sacramento, behavioral health services, and legal pathways to get individuals into mental health and substance use treatment. Participants expressed strong support for continued collaboration, with overwhelming agreement to pursue a multi-jurisdictional approach. Major challenges identified included lack of housing, funding shortfalls, inconsistent coordination across jurisdictions, frustration over silos with housing and homelessness partners and impending federal cuts. Solutions discussed included shared or new governance structures, better data sharing, prevention focus, and selecting a new structure that could be established quickly.
Across the count, there were examples of collaboration and solutions that are beginning to make progress in turning the tide of Sacramento County’s overall number of people experiencing homelessness. The Sacramento County 2024 Point-in-Time count saw a 28.7 percent reduction in individuals experiencing homelessness since 2022. This could be attributed to the 2023 Sacramento City and County Agreement, as well as the efforts of the City of Sacramento, the suburban cities, and the County of Sacramento in outreach and engagement, increased shelter capacity, temporary housing, and integrated services.
ITEM 3.1.
ATTACHMENT 1
Sacramento Countywide Homelessness Summit on October 28, 2025 Report and Recommendations
by Mosaic Solutions & Advocacy
2 THEMES
Survey Results and Stakeholder Priorities
As part of the pre-work conducted prior to the Summit, a survey was sent out to all elected officials participating in the meeting. There were twenty surveys completed by elected officials, key county and city staff, Sacramento Steps Forward (SSF), and some members of the Continuum of Care (CoC). The survey results from the participants prior to the meeting and questions asked during the meeting clearly showed homelessness is a very important priority, with the Board of Supervisors, Sacramento City Council, and the homeless population ranking as the most vital stakeholders. Not surprisingly, the City and County of Sacramento ranked highest as the jurisdictions facing the most difficult homelessness challenge. For a majority of elected officials, the most meaningful challenges identified included lack of housing, funding for programs and services, handling of homeless encampments, program efficacy, and lack of consistency across jurisdictions. Top priorities for improvement included programs and services, city and county coordination, funding policies, community awareness, and shared governance.
Elected Officials' Desired Engagement Level
Officials expressed a strong desire for more direct involvement in the homelessness response. Key themes included the need for faster response times for constituent services, formal forums for regular coordination meetings, direct involvement in resource allocation decisions and service delivery implementation. Multiple officials emphasized the need to get services to people more quickly. A majority of elected officials mentioned wanting a direct role in governance and accepting the accountability that comes with it. During the summit and in previous interviews, elected officials expressed that they need more regular access to critical information from existing structures like Sacramento Steps Forward (SSF), the Continuum of Care (CoC), and Sacramento Housing Redevelopment Agency (SHRA) to effectively serve their constituents and make informed policy decisions.
Regional Coordination and Information Sharing
Strong consensus emerged for a formal forum that would meet monthly or quarterly where elected officials from all jurisdictions could coordinate efforts, share information about programs, establish similar strategies, and avoid displacing problems to neighboring areas, deeming the current ad hoc approach insufficient. A need was identified for real-time information sharing, including which programs are working, how cities can access county services, federal policy changes affecting funding, and data-driven decision making.
Multiple participants noted opportunities for SSF and the CoC to take a stronger leadership role in facilitating information sharing and regional coordination. Participants wanted to ITEM 3.1.
ATTACHMENT 1
Sacramento Countywide Homelessness Summit on October 28, 2025 Report and Recommendations
by Mosaic Solutions & Advocacy
3 move beyond individual presentations to collaborative dialogue where officials can build on each other's ideas and make joint decisions including involvement from first responders and law enforcement.
Prevention vs Response Strategy
Multiple participants emphasized the need to shift focus toward prevention rather than just responding to current problems on the streets. Currently, approximately 1% of the $418 million spent on addressing homelessness goes to prevention, according to statistics cited at the Summit. Prevention receives insufficient resources despite being more cost- effective in the long run. Some officials stressed that the county region cannot 'build its way out' of homelessness through sheltering alone – it must prevent people at risk from becoming homeless. Prevention programs include affordable housing development, rental assistance programs, early intervention services, and access to substance use and mental health treatment services.
Data-Driven Decision Making and Accountability
Several officials placed a strong emphasis on the need for a mission-driven, vision-based approach supported by data analytics. They want to see evidence of program effectiveness across different districts and jurisdictions. Many identified the need for real-time data sharing, performance metrics, and the ability to redirect resources when programs aren't working. Others stressed the importance of measuring outcomes and managing what gets measured.
Suburban Cities Participation
During the discussion, the group addressed the role of smaller jurisdictions in a countywide collaboration. While acknowledging that most of the homeless population is concentrated in the City of Sacramento and the unincorporated County, there was also recognition that all cities are affected by the transient nature of this population and the need for regional solutions. Smaller cities shared that they contribute through prevention efforts, sharing best practices, and joint advocacy at state/federal levels. Some also expressed concern about governance structures and potential loss of local control in land use decisions and local funding. However, there was general agreement that a countywide approach strengthens the collective voice for funding and policy advocacy.
Staff and Partner Roles
The officials expressed a strong appreciation for city and county staff expertise and collaborative relationships. They also acknowledged that they are not subject matter ITEM 3.1.
ATTACHMENT 1
Sacramento Countywide Homelessness Summit on October 28, 2025 Report and Recommendations
by Mosaic Solutions & Advocacy
4 experts and benefit from the input of professionals and leaders in the community such as first responders, law enforcement, nonprofit partners, hospital systems, and people with lived experience. Officials also acknowledged the importance of staff in the process of implementing decisions, but concerns were raised about staff burnout from competing priorities and need for clarity on goals and priorities. Some stressed the importance of including community health workers, healthcare providers, and frontline service providers in the planning processes.
Funding Challenges and Federal Impacts
One of the major concerns raised was the impending federal funding cuts affecting HUD programs, permanent supportive housing, and social safety net services. After the October 28th Summit, HUD released its new policies and funding proposals which will change what needs to be prioritized for federal funding. The state budget situation is also constraining and may result in reduced allocations in homelessness funding. Local jurisdictions will also be facing deficits which may impact their ability to make local contributions to existing homeless and housing programs. There was general recognition that more must be done with less resources, requiring better coordination and economies of scale. Participants identified the need for joint advocacy to state and federal levels to protect existing funding and secure new resources. They emphasized that if the incorporated cities and County of Sacramento could work together more closely, they could improve opportunities for regional grants from state and federal sources.
Current Partnership Agreement Evaluation
The Officials discussed the existing Sacramento City-County Partnership Agreement that was signed in December 2022 with implementation beginning in 2023. There was agreement that this has been largely successful in meeting deliverables and better coordination with City and County. The Officials favored building on a proven foundation rather than creating an entirely new agreement. This included an emphasis on avoiding additional bureaucracy while improving coordination and outcomes. Transparency in developing a new agreement was also raised as a critical issue.
Organizational Structure Options
During the meeting, an important discussion arose regarding whether the need for improved collaboration should be addressed through a new structure, including a Joint Powers Authority (JPA), Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), or other multi-party agreements. There was also discussion on whether this goal might more easily be achieved through the development of shared goals, updating the current working agreements and informal coordination via additional county-wide meetings. Past Grand Jury reports were ITEM 3.1.
ATTACHMENT 1
Sacramento Countywide Homelessness Summit on October 28, 2025 Report and Recommendations
by Mosaic Solutions & Advocacy
5 mentioned, that recommended a formal governance structure and emphasized the need for a formal document to ensure consistency beyond the tenure of current elected officials and to provide an accountability framework. Some Officials pointed out that coordination does not require new organization but can be accomplished more efficiently with better utilization of existing structures. This touches on existing structures like SSF, CoC, and SHRA. Overall, there was shared support for whatever structure enables shared decision- making and resource coordination while maintaining appropriate roles for different sized jurisdictions. There was a recognition of the importance of detailing the roles and responsibilities of the County and the cities if any new or updated shared governance arrangement is created. The need for expediency was raised, regardless of which system is created to improve coordination among the incorporated cities and the County of Sacramento.
Public Comment Themes
Community speakers emphasized the importance of prevention, permanent housing solutions, and including people with lived experience in planning the future. Many addressed trust issues between government and community, while others focused on human dignity, and the urgency of the crisis with winter approaching. Specific concerns were also raised about jail release procedures, SHRA performance, the CoC and SSF performance and responsibilities, along with the need for more flexible service approaches, affordable housing development and the environmental impacts of encampments. Most speakers expressed strong support for regional collaboration approach of some kind.
Recommendation
When reviewing the perspectives shared in the meeting and during one-on-one interviews that occurred before and after the Summit, two themes consistently emerged: first, the need for the elected city and county representatives to become more directly involved in leading the homelessness efforts in the Sacramento region; and second, the need to strengthen the existing system to make it more collaborative and effective. All officials present at the October 28th Summit expressed a commitment to working together to confront the complexities of homelessness across the cities and in the County. While new ideas—such as establishing a new Sacramento Housing and Homelessness Board or creating a new JPA—may appear promising (and ultimately may be needed) they largely function as workarounds, intended to address the elected officials’ frustration with the effectiveness of the current system.
Under the current system, the Sacramento CoC serves as the federally designated decision-making body that is responsible for coordinating and overseeing grants, ITEM 3.1.
ATTACHMENT 1
Sacramento Countywide Homelessness Summit on October 28, 2025 Report and Recommendations
by Mosaic Solutions & Advocacy
6 strategies and programs to address homelessness. These grants support community-wide planning, resource coordination, data collection, and the operation of programs that help people experiencing homelessness move into housing.
Sacramento’s CoC is part of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s national CoC Program and is governed by a Board of over 30 community members, utilizing 10 standing committees. As discussed below, we believe that this diluted leadership structure has contributed to the CoC’s perceived lack of effectiveness.
With regard to SSF, it presently serves as the lead agency for the CoC, helping with the coordination of funding through HUD and assisting in the CoC’s mission of providing oversight and monitoring of projects receiving CoC funding. SSF is a non-profit and is governed by its own Board of Directors, independent of the CoC.
The day-to-day relationship between SSF and the CoC is complex. Based on our interviews, it is unclear to many stakeholders whether the CoC is setting policy that SSF executes, or whether SSF is effectively guiding the CoC’s development of Sacramento’s homeless priorities. This ambiguity has contributed to a lack of clear leadership and accountability across the system. For example, members of the CoC reported that their board had not received financial reports from SSF in the last several years. In this light, it is important to note that while several city and county staff serve on the CoC, currently no elected officials serve on the board of either SSF or the CoC.
Many officials that were interviewed agreed that SSF has an important policy-setting role and employs many capable staff members who are diligently working to coordinate homelessness systems across the cities and the County. However, there was also strong consensus among elected officials that the information, data, and reporting generated by SSF and the CoC are not consistently or effectively communicated from SSF leadership to the officials who rely on this information to govern. As a result, many elected officials believe that communication, leadership and accountability in the current system could be significantly improved through a new, more direct leadership structure at both SSF and the CoC.
As noted above, for many years the role of the CoC was straight-forward, it served as the lead agency for seeking and distributing federal funding, along with coordinating Sacramento’s homelessness response. But since 2015, with the introduction of new state, county, and local funding streams, the CoC’s federal funding now contributes only about 10 percent of the overall resources addressing homelessness in Sacramento. This shift to a more diversified funding stream has complicated the roles of the CoC and SSF, requiring a greater level of collaboration between these groups and the elected leaders in the region.
ITEM 3.1.
ATTACHMENT 1
Sacramento Countywide Homelessness Summit on October 28, 2025 Report and Recommendations
by Mosaic Solutions & Advocacy
7 Both the Sacramento County Board of Supervisors and the Sacramento City Council have discussed various strategies to address communication gaps between the CoC, SSF, and elected officials and many of the recommendations in this report build upon concepts that have been raised in prior discussions.
Recommendation #1
To ensure more direct involvement of elected officials and a countywide focus on addressing homelessness that breaks down silos and increases accountability, our first recommendation is to reconstitute the leadership of the CoC. While the CoC must continue to meet federal guidelines, we recommend that the CoC change its leadership structure, so that a majority of voting members are elected officials from the Sacramento County Board of Supervisors, the City of Sacramento, along with an elected official from the suburban cities in Sacramento County. While those elected officials can then decide whether to attend themselves or send a representative, in either case, they will have a direct line of authority, communication, and responsibility for improving the region’s homelessness response.
In addition, the CoC membership should include community leaders with decision making authority from Sacramento hospital systems, first responders, law enforcement, business community, and school districts, while maintaining some of the existing members from community-based organizations and individuals with lived experience.
The reconstituted CoC would then, under the leadership of elected officials and diverse stakeholders, become the primary driver of homelessness policy and coordination in Sacramento County. The CoC would have the authority and responsibility to determine its relationship with SSF, including whether SSF would maintain its role as the CoC’s lead agency in Sacramento and under what terms.
Under this model, the CoC would have the power and accountability to implement a vision driven by elected leadership from throughout the County. This change would break down existing silos and align Sacramento’s governance structure similarly to other successful models of CoCs that are more directly connected to local government.
As the region faces significant HUD funding cuts, changes to the CoC mission, possible reductions in state funding, and constrained local budgets, it is critical that Sacramento has in place a direct and effective structure, allowing the cities and the County the authority and accountability needed to achieve rapid, comprehensive improvement in managing these challenges. In our view, a revised CoC leadership structure is the best approach to meet these challenges.
ITEM 3.1.
ATTACHMENT 1
Sacramento Countywide Homelessness Summit on October 28, 2025 Report and Recommendations
by Mosaic Solutions & Advocacy
8 Recommendation #2
To ensure the timeliness of these structural changes, the County Board of Supervisors and the Sacramento City Council should work collaboratively with the CoC to establish a reasonable implementation timeline. This transition will require good-faith efforts from all parties. However, if the CoC is unable or unwilling to work with the City and County of Sacramento to reconstitute its structure so that elected officials from the County and incorporated cities hold a majority of seats, the Sacramento City and County should be prepared to move forward with the creation of a new Board or Commission to assume the policy-making and coordination functions currently performed by the CoC/SSF, while maintaining only those federally mandated functions at the CoC.
Under this scenario, the Sacramento County Board of Supervisors and the Sacramento City Council would redirect county and city funding to support the new Board or Commission, focusing local resources where elected officials have direct accountability. While reconstituting the existing CoC remains the preferred approach due to its established infrastructure and relationships, creating a new governance structure may become necessary if the current system cannot adapt to meet the region's evolving needs.
Recommendation #3
In addition to a leadership structure, the County of Sacramento and the City of Sacramento should enter into a new or updated MOU that builds on the success of the 2022 partnership agreement while expanding its scope to address the changing landscape. While county and city staff and officials are already working collaboratively under the current framework, formalizing an enhanced agreement that clearly lays out expanded roles, shared performance metrics, and joint governance goals will help sustain this partnership through changes in staffing, elected leadership, and fiscal conditions.
Recommendation #4
The County of Sacramento should work with the County’s suburban cities to develop individual MOUs or agreements that clearly define roles, responsibilities, and shared goals. Although many suburban cities are taking proactive steps to address homelessness and their populations are smaller and more manageable, this progress is at risk. Without formal agreements or partnerships, gains could be lost as funding diminishes and attention shifts to other emerging priorities.
ITEM 3.1.
ATTACHMENT 1
Sacramento Countywide Homelessness Summit on October 28, 2025 Report and Recommendations
by Mosaic Solutions & Advocacy
9 The October 28th Countywide Homelessness Summit marked an important first step in bringing Sacramento County and all incorporated cities together to discuss homelessness in a more coordinated way. This effort comes at a critical moment, as these cities prepare for potentially significant federal and state funding changes.
Conclusion:
The October 28th Countywide Homelessness Summit demonstrated that Sacramento is ready to move beyond fragmented efforts and toward a unified, accountable, and data- driven approach to addressing homelessness. Despite meaningful progress in recent years, elected officials, staff, service partners, and community members all emphasized that the current system lacks the cohesion, transparency, and leadership necessary to sustain and accelerate this momentum.
The recommendations in this report are designed to build on existing strengths while addressing long-standing structural challenges. By reconstituting the CoC to focus leadership with local elected officials, establishing clear lines of authority and communication, formalizing intergovernmental partnerships, and aligning City and County responsibilities, we will create a governance model capable of navigating shrinking budgets, shifting state and federal priorities, and increasing community expectations.
These reforms can be implemented rapidly, without creating unnecessary bureaucracy, and they position the region to compete more effectively for future funding.
Sacramento has what is needed to transform its response to homelessness proactively before significant changes begin impacting the fiscal situation in California. But success will depend on decisive action, unified leadership, and a sustained commitment to collaboration at every level of government. By adopting these recommendations and working collectively across jurisdictions, Sacramento County and its cities can build a more efficient, responsive, and equitable system.
ITEM 3.1.
ATTACHMENT 1
Sacramento Countywide Homelessness Summit on October 28, 2025 Report and Recommendations
by Mosaic Solutions & Advocacy
10 Appendix
Sacramento Countywide Homelessness Summit October 28, 2025 Elected Official Participants
Sacramento County Board of Supervisors
Supervisor Phil Serna (Chair) Supervisor Pat Hume
Supervisor Rich Desmond Supervisor Patrick Kennedy
Supervisor Rosario Rodriguez
Sacramento City Council
Councilmember Kevin McCarty (Mayor) Councilmember Karina Talamantes Councilmember Phil Pluckebaum Councilmember Lisa Kaplan Councilmember Eric Guerra Councilmember Caity Maple
Councilmember Rick Jennings Councilmember Mai Vang
Councilmember Roger Dickinson
Citrus Heights
Mayor Jayna Karpinski-Costa
Elk Grove
Mayor Bobbie Singh-Allen
Folsom
Mayor Sarah Aquino
Galt
Mayor Shawn Farmer
Rancho Cordova
Councilmember Linda Budge
ITEM 3.1.
ATTACHMENT 1
CoC Program
Administration
Community-wide Strategy,
Priorities and Goals
Jurisdictional Program
Administration
• managing and monitoring CoC funding
• managing HMIS
• operating CAS
• facilitating bi-ennial PIT
• convening CoC board
• system performance targets
• integration with other systems
(criminal justice, health care,
education, public housing, etc.)
• priorities for new funding
• managing and monitoring local funding
• land use decisions
• street management practices
• response to constituent concerns
CurrentRecommended
Option
Alternative
OptionJPA Option
CoC Board
City Councils
CoC Board
Re-constituted to include majority elected officials
and decision making community leaders
Board of Supervisors
advisory
CoC Board
Structure compliant with
HUD only
Sacramento Homeless &
Housing Board (SHHB)
new board consisting of
elected officials
advisory
Board of Supervisors
City Councils
Board of Supervisors
City Councils
New JPA Board
Consolidates policy making, funding decisions and program operations from CoC and local jurisdictions to a new JPA, with independent staffing. Jurisdictions retain land use decisions.
Attachment 2
ITEM 3.1.
ATTACHMENT 2
UPDATE AND DISCUSSION
REGARDING COUNTYWIDE
HOMELESSNESS SHARED
GOVERNANCE
ITEM 3.1.
ATTACHMENT 3
GOAL FOR THIS PRESENTATION
• Update the City Council on the regional homelessness
g
overnance conversation and the County Board of
Supervisors recommended Continuum of Care (CoC)
restructuring, and receive feedback
ITEM 3.1.
ATTACHMENT 3
Homeless & Housing
System Partnership Update
Department of Homeless Services and Housing
January/February 2026
ITEM 3.1.
ATTACHMENT 3
Background
• 2024: Collaborative work towards new homeless partnership model following landscape analysis on potential models
• August/September 2025: County Board of Supervisors and councils from six cities discuss a proposal to create a Sacramento Homeless and Housing Board (SHHB) to serve as the CoC and serve as a policy making body for regional homeless issues. • October 2025: Joint meeting of the County Board of Supervisors, Sacramento City Council, and Mayors of the six cities meet to discuss homelessness and hear recommendations from Mosaic Consulting.
• December 2025: County Board of Supervisors directs County staff to pursue a modification of the August model, following Mosaic’s recommendations, and to seek input from cities and Continuum of Care (CoC) on this approach.
4Jan/Feb 2026
ITEM 3.1.
ATTACHMENT 3
Options for New Homeless &
Housing Partnership Model
5 CoC Program Administration Community-wide Strategy, Priorities and Goals Jurisdictional Program Administration
• managing and monitoring CoC funding
• managing HMIS
• operating CAS
• facilitating biennial PIT
• convening CoC board
• system performance targets
• integration with other systems (criminal justice, health care, education, public housing, etc.)
• priorities for new funding
• managing and monitoring local funding
• land use decisions
• street management practices
• response to constituent concerns
Current
Recommended
Option
Alternative
Option
JPA Option
CoC Board
City Councils
CoC Board
Re-constituted to include majority elected officials and decision-making community leaders
Board of Supervisors
advisory
CoC Board
Structure compliant with HUD only
Sacramento Homeless & Housing
Board (SHHB)
new board consisting of elected
officials
advisory
Board of Supervisors
City Councils
Board of Supervisors
City Councils
New JPA Board
Consolidates policy making, funding decisions and program operations from CoC and local jurisdictions to a new JPA, with independent staffing. Jurisdictions retain land use decisions.
Jan/Feb 2026
ITEM 3.1.
ATTACHMENT 3
Next Steps
6Jan/Feb 2026
1. Seek Input from cities
• Sacramento: January 13th
• Rancho Cordova: January 27th
• Citrus Heights: January 28th
• Elk Grove: January 28th
• Galt: February 3rd
• Folsom: February 10th
2. Request CoC to agendize Recommended Option
3. Pursue re-constitution of CoC Board OR Sacramento Homeless and Housing Board (SHHB) *SHHB only if the CoC Board will not agree to re-constitution ITEM 3.1.
ATTACHMENT 3
Questions & Discussion
ITEM 3.1.
ATTACHMENT 3
MEMORANDUM
City Council Staff Report - Page 1 of 2
ITEM 3.2.
DATE: January 27, 2026
TO: Honorable Mayor and Council Members
FROM: Stefan Heisler, Housing Manager
SUBJECT: UPDATE AND DIRECTION ON SENATE BILL (SB) 802 (ASHBY)
RECOMMENDATION
Provide direction to staff to remain neutral on SB 802 with the proposed amendments.
RESULT OF RECOMMENDED ACTION
The City Council will receive a presentation providing an update on SB 802. A neutral position on SB 802 is necessary to keep the proposed amendments to the bill that will allow the city to maintain control over local funding sources for affordable housing and Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program funding.
BACKGROUND
On June 24, 2025, Senator Ashby introduced SB 802 that, if passed and signed, would implement significant changes to the governance of housing and homelessness efforts in Sacramento County.
The bill would create a new housing and homelessness authority, the Sacramento Area Housing and Homelessness Agency (SAHHA), as a new Joint Powers Authority (JPA) that would restructure the Sacramento Housing and Redevelopment Agency (SHRA). The new JPA would comprise the County and all cities with populations over 50,000. The board would be comprised of eleven elected officials including:
• Three members from the City of Sacramento
• Three members from the County of Sacramento
• Two members from the City of Elk Grove
• One member from each of the cities of Citrus Heights, Folsom, and Rancho Cordova
Central to the legislation is consolidating all housing and homelessness related funding and programs across the County of Sacramento and the participating cities to coordinate affordable housing development and homelessness services.
The bill was initially opposed by the cities of Sacramento, Citrus Heights, Elk Grove, Folsom, and Rancho Cordova. Following this local and regional opposition, Senator Ashby’s office convened a series of discussions with city managers throughout Sacramento County. In July
City Council Staff Report - Page 2 of 2
2025, City Manager Runner, along with the city managers of Citrus Heights, Elk Grove, and Folsom, negotiated revisions to SB-802.
Based on these discussions, Senator Ashby agreed to proceed with amendments that preserve local control for the smaller cities in three areas that were at risk under the original bill. These key funding sources/programs include:
• The Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program
• The HOME Investment Partnerships Program – The City of Rancho Cordova currently participates in the HOME Consortium with SHRA and does not receive a direct entitlement allocation
• All funds associated with local jurisdictions’ housing trust funds and/or local housing ordinance impact fees.
Now that the Legislature is back in session, Senator Ashby is requesting formal positions from each of the jurisdictions be submitted to her office by January 31, 2026. A neutral or support position is required for the proposed local funding control amendments to be included in the reintroduced bill.
Some questions remain outstanding regarding the bill and the proposed amendments including:
• It is unclear who would control funding sources created in the future • The bill proposes to give “priority consideration” to SAHHA for all state housing and homelessness funding sources, where “priority consideration” is undefined • It is unclear if the bill precludes local jurisdictions from applying for State affordable housing or homelessness programs, or if all applications must be coordinated through SAHHA
NEXT STEPS
With City Council direction, staff will submit a letter of neutrality to Senator Ashby on SB 802.
Staff will continue to work with the Senator’s office to add additional clarity on remaining questions and concerns the city has.
FISCAL IMPACT AND FUNDING SOURCE
There is no fiscal impact.
ATTACHMENT(S)
1. Presentation
UPDATE AND DISCUSSION REGARDING SB 802
ITEM 3.2.
ATTACHMENT 1
GOAL FOR THIS PRESENTATION
• Update the City Council on SB 802 (Ashby), and provide d
irection on the city’s position
ITEM 3.2.
ATTACHMENT 1
SB 802 MAIN POINTS
• Would create a new Countywide JPA Board –t he Sacramento Area Housing and Homelessness Agency (SAHHA)
• 3 seats for Sacramento County, 3 seats for Sacramento City, • 2 seats for Elk Grove, 1 seat each for Citrus Heights, Folsom and Rancho C
ordova
• Would replace SHRA as the Housing Authority
• Would assume management of federal, state, and some local affordable hous
ing and homelessness programs
• Would assume management of the Continuum of Care program w
ithin a Homelessness Division
• Amendments preserve the city’s largest local funding sources • Will assume control of all local funding sources if jurisdictions take an “
Opposed” position
ITEM 3.2.
ATTACHMENT 1
SB 802 CLARIFICATIONS REQUESTED
• Unclear about who would control funding sources/programs cr
eated in the future
• Proposes to give “priority consideration” to SAHHA for all s
tate housing and homelessness funding sources
• “priority consideration” is undefined
• Unclear if the bill precludes local jurisdictions from applying for S
tate affordable housing or homelessness programs without SAHHA approval
ITEM 3.2.
ATTACHMENT 1
REQUESTED DIRECTION
A “Neutral” position on SB802 is necessary to keep the
proposed amendments to the bill to retain local control over the following funding sources:
• Affordable Housing In-L ieu impact fees (residential fee) • Housing Trust Development Impact fee (nonresidential fee) • Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funding
ITEM 3.2.
ATTACHMENT 1
THANK YOU
Questions & Comments
ITEM 3.2.
ATTACHMENT 1
MEMORANDUM
City Council Staff Report - Page 1 of 2
ITEM 3.3.
DATE: January 27, 2026
TO: Honorable Mayor and Council Members
FROM: Albert Stricker, Public Works Director
Drew Hart, Senior Transportation Planner
SUBJECT: ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN UPDATE: APPROACHING FINAL
RECOMMENDATIONS
RECOMMENDATION
Receive a presentation from staff on the Draft Active Transportation Plan and provide direction on the final recommendations. Providing direction to staff would guide the finalization of the plan in preparation for final adoption in spring of 2026.
RESULT OF RECOMMENDED ACTION
Staff would incorporate direction provided by City Council into the final draft of the Active Transportation Plan.
BACKGROUND
The City of Rancho Cordova Public Works Department received $301,295 of grant funding from the Caltrans to update the Pedestrian Master Plan (adopted 2011) and the Bicycle Master Plan (adopted 2016). Staff procured the support of the consulting team lead by Kittelson and Associates, and began the task of reviewing current city and regional plans, evaluating existing conditions, and engaging with the community.
In March 2025, staff presented to City Council findings from the project’s community listening efforts to date and presented a vision statement and goals for feedback. Comments from City Council were incorporated and shaped the direction of the plan.
Through the remainder of the year, the project team focused on analyzing existing conditions, planned projects, identifying gaps in the network, and developing a proposed network of projects to improve walking, biking, and rolling in Rancho Cordova. In addition to infrastructure projects, recommendations to policies and programs were developed through collaboration with agency partners.
The findings of this analysis were shared with the community in fall of 2025 through many engagement activities including a public workshop at City Hall and an online survey.
Quantitative analysis, blended with qualitative data from community feedback led the project team to the draft Active Transportation Plan.
City Council Staff Report - Page 2 of 2
The daft Active Transportation Plan consists of the following:
• 50 miles of new or improved sidewalks
• 112 new or enhanced crossings
• 205 miles of new or improved bikeways
To focus on the most impactful projects, the project team applied a prioritization screening which placed projects into three tiers. The top tier of high priority and near-term projects includes a mix of signalized crosswalks, over- and under-crossings, sidewalk gap closures, and 31 miles of new or enhanced bikeways suitable for all ages and abilities.
Staff prepared a presentation to share with City Council the draft Active Transportation Plan.
Feedback will be incorporated into the final Active Transportation Plan and be brought to City Council for adoption this spring.
FISCAL IMPACT AND FUNDING SOURCE
There is no fiscal impact to the general fund.
ATTACHMENT(S)
1. Presentation
ITEM 3.3.
ATTACHMENT 1
ITEM 3.3.
ATTACHMENT 1
ITEM 3.3.
ATTACHMENT 1
•
•
•
ITEM 3.3.
ATTACHMENT 1
ITEM 3.3.
ATTACHMENT 1
ITEM 3.3.
ATTACHMENT 1
ITEM 3.3.
ATTACHMENT 1
ITEM 3.3.
ATTACHMENT 1
•
•
•
•
•
ITEM 3.3.
ATTACHMENT 1
•
•
•
•
ITEM 3.3.
ATTACHMENT 1
•
•
•
ITEM 3.3.
ATTACHMENT 1
ITEM 3.3.
ATTACHMENT 1
ITEM 3.3.
ATTACHMENT 1
ITEM 3.3.
ATTACHMENT 1
ITEM 3.3.
ATTACHMENT 1
ITEM 3.3.
ATTACHMENT 1
ITEM 3.3.
ATTACHMENT 1
ITEM 3.3.
ATTACHMENT 1
ITEM 3.3.
ATTACHMENT 1
ITEM 3.3.
ATTACHMENT 1
ITEM 3.3.
ATTACHMENT 1
ITEM 3.3.
ATTACHMENT 1
•
•
•
•
•
ITEM 3.3.
ATTACHMENT 1
MEMORANDUM
City Council Staff Report - Page 1 of 3
ITEM 3.4.
DATE: January 27, 2026
TO: Honorable Mayor and Council Members
FROM: Stefan Heisler, Housing Manager
SUBJECT: DISCUSSION AND DIRECTION REGARDING THE HOUSING
COMPONENTS OF THE FORMER MILLS CROSSING PROJECT
RECOMMENDATION
Receive presentation and provide feedback.
RESULT OF RECOMMENDED ACTION
Staff will present an update to Council on the Mills Station affordable housing project with Related California and provide options for discussion on how to move the project forward, along with options to consider for the market rate single-family housing component at the Mills Crossing site as well.
BACKGROUND
In July 2020, the City of Rancho Cordova selected the partnership of Griffin Swinerton and Related California (Related) to be the city's master developer partner for the Mills Crossing Project including a mix of community commercial facilities and housing. In April 2021, the City Council approved a preferred development alternative which included a housing mix of market rate single-family homes and an affordable multifamily project. In October 2024, the City Council approved a Permanent Local Housing Allocation (PLHA) funded predevelopment loan for the affordable multifamily component to begin predevelopment work.
This affordable multifamily project, the Mills Station Affordable Project (Project), is a new 60-unit multifamily residential apartment complex for families. The Project is anticipated to consist of 14 studios, 15 one-bedroom units, 15 two-bedroom units, 15 three-bedroom units, and one manager’s unit. The units will be affordable for households earning up to 80% of the area median income (AMI). Preliminary designs have been prepared, and are attached to this report, and the Project is now ready to submit for design review pending Council direction.
The best funding strategy for the Project utilizes the State of California Affordable Housing Sustainable Communities (AHSC) funding program. Other strategies would include use of 9% Low-Income Housing Tax Credits, but are projected to require a higher local funding subsidy.
Therefore, the Project team has been looking heavily at the AHSC funding option and was working heavily with the AHSC technical assistance team in 2025. Staff and Related anticipate that the Project will be highly competitive for AHSC funding in 2026. The Governor’s 2026-27 Budget proposes to separate affordable housing funding from the rest of the AHSC program in
City Council Staff Report - Page 2 of 3
2027, therefore 2026 is likely the Project’s last opportunity to attract combined transit and housing funds.
AHSC funding is projected to deliver $30,000,000. Approximately $18,700,000 would go to the Project for the construction of the housing project, and the remaining $11,300,000 would go towards local Sustainable Transportation Infrastructure (STI) projects that significantly reduce greenhouse gas (ghg) emissions. The STI projects being considered for this AHSC application must include funding for the Horn Road Light Rail Station, local bicycle and pedestrian projects, and sidewalk improvements within a 1-mile radius of the Project site for the application to show significant enough ghg reductions to be competitive. This presents an additional opportunity to advance other key projects for the city.
The 2026 AHSC application submittal deadline is anticipated in May. Projects are required to have completed design review, unless exempted, and receive local funding commitments prior to application submittal. Therefore, the Project needs City Council direction that a local funding commitment for an AHSC application is supported prior to beginning design review.
Alternatively, the Project is eligible to leverage AB 1397 and pursue a ministerial design review approval due to its affordability percentage and the site’s inclusion in the last two Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) cycles site inventory. Utilizing AB 1397 would allow a longer outreach period from January – March before finalizing the entitlement design and submitting the entitlement application in April and can still include presenting to the city’s Planning Commission for feedback and support. AHSC allows a submitted ministerial entitlement application to demonstrate project “readiness”, whereas a discretionary project must be approved prior to the AHSC application.
Project Timeline
The following project timeline assumes the fastest possible route to completion assuming an AHSC project application submittal in May 2026.
Design Review submittal – January 2026
Design Review approval – April/May 2026
AHSC application submittal – May 2026
AHSC award notification – December 2026
4% Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) application submittal – February 2027 4% LIHTC award notification – May 2027
Construction start – December 2027
Construction completion – October 2029
Single-Family Housing Component
Work continues to identify a developer for the single-family housing component. If no one is selected before the AHSC application is submitted, there is still another year and a half for the market rate project to catch up before the affordable housing is under construction.
Alternatives
There are several alternatives for the City Council to consider for both the affordable multi- family housing project and the market rate single-family housing component.
City Council Staff Report - Page 3 of 3
Multifamily:
1. Provide direction to Related to submit for design review and pursue a 2026 AHSC application
2. Provide direction to Related to submit for a ministerial design review, including feedback from Planning Commission, and pursue a 2026 AHSC application
3. Pause the project until the single-family component can submit for design review at the same time
4. Pause the project until a new plan is in place for the overall city site
Single-family:
1. Continue efforts to identify a single-family housing developer
2. Consider subsidizing the single-family component to gain additional design flexibility and potentially accelerate the timeline for development
3. Pause the project until a new plan is in place for the overall city site
FISCAL IMPACT AND FUNDING SOURCE
The Project is requesting approximately $6.3 million in local funding and include contribution of the city-owned land. The local funding includes $750,000 of already committed Permanent Local Housing Allocation (PLHA) funding and can be further reduced if other grant funding is secured for the Project up until the AHSC application is submitted.
The city has $1,000,000 of Community Enhancement and Investment Fund – Legacy funding allocated for affordable housing projects. The Housing Trust Fund has a current balance of approximately $9,400,000 and is projected to receive approximately $1,100,000 per year in the current 2-year budget cycle. The city has already committed $1,692,000 to the Crossings at Woodberry Project and staff is anticipating a funding request in February 2026 for the Asteria Flats project of $5,000,000. Staff also expects that the Mather Veterans Village Phase 5 project will have a request in 2026 or 2027 of approximately $6-$8 million, but that may depend on whether project-based housing vouchers can be secured.
ATTACHMENT(S)
1. Preliminary Project Designs
2. Presentation
ITEM 3.4.
ATTACHMENT 1
DISCUSSION AND DIRECTION
REGARDING THE HOUSING
COMPONENTS OF THE FORMER
MILLS CROSSING PROJECT
ITEM 3.4.
ATTACHMENT 2
GOALS FOR THIS PRESENTATION
• Present an update on the Mills Station Affordable
mul
tifamily housing project and the market rate single-
family housing component
• Request feedback and direction from the City Council
r
egarding how to move these housing projects forward
ITEM 3.4.
ATTACHMENT 2
PROJECT CONTEXT
• Mills Crossing commercial development is paused
• Road and infrastructure site improvements are underway • Housing components have been making progress
• The Mills Station Affordable project is ready to submit for de
sign review and is looking at grant funding options in 2026 • Related is reaching out to developers for interest on the m
arket rate single-family housing component
ITEM 3.4.
ATTACHMENT 2
MILLS STATION AFFORDABLE PROJECT DETAILS
The project consists of:
• 60-uni ts
• 14 studios
• 15 1-b edroom units
• 15 2-b edroom units
• 15 3-b edroom units
• 1 manager’s unit
• Community room
• Outdoor play area
• Up to 80% area median
i
ncome
ITEM 3.4.
ATTACHMENT 2
FUNDING STRATEGY
• Utilize either the Affordable Housing Sustainable
Co
mmunities (AHSC) or 9% Low-Income Housing Tax
Credit (LIHTC) program
• AHSC requires less local subsidy and would provide
fund
ing for other key city projects
• $6.3 million of local gap funding is needed
• $30 million max award - $1 8.7 million for housing, $11.3 million for the Horn Road Light Rail Station, and bicycle, pedestrian, and sidewalk improvements within 1 mile of the project site ITEM 3.4.
ATTACHMENT 2
Related California
Your Affordable Housing Developer at Mills Crossing
Tuesday, January 27, 2026
ITEM 3.4.
ATTACHMENT 2
Related California is one of the largest developers and operators of affordable, mixed-income housing, and market rate housing on the West Coast.
15,900+ affordable
homes completed
7,950+ affordable
homes in pipeline
135+ LIHTC
properties
$10.3B+ portfolio
120+ design awards
70+ public/private
partnerships
ITEM 3.4.
ATTACHMENT 2
Our projects have attracted $332mm of AHSC funds to housing and infrastructure projects.
710 affordable
homes
$156mm for
Housing Projects
$88mm for Transit
and Infrastructure
Projects
ITEM 3.4.
ATTACHMENT 2
Examples of Related AHSC Transit and Infrastructure projects Purchase of Bay Area
Rapid Transit District
(BART) rail cars
Transit station public
plaza and drop off area
Protected bike lanes and
sidewalk widening
Bus station and Bus
Rapid Transit
improvements
Public Plaza
ITEM 3.4.
ATTACHMENT 2
KEY PROJECT MILESTONES
Fastest possible route for the Mills Station Affordable project assuming an AHSC project application:
• Design Review submittal – J anuary 2026
• Design Review approval – Ap ril 2026
• AHSC application submittal – M ay 2026
• AHSC award notification – December 2026
• 4% LIHTC application submittal – February 2027
• 4% LIHTC award notification – May 2027
• Construction start – Dec ember 2027
• Construction completion – October 2029
ITEM 3.4.
ATTACHMENT 2
FISCAL IMPACT
City Funding Sources
• $1,000,000 of CEIF Legacy funding
• $9,400,000 in the city’s Housing Trust fund
• projected to be $11,500,000 by the end of CY 2027
Project Costs
• $6,300,000 requested for the Mills Station Affordable project • $750,000 already committed through PLHA
• Funding commitment needed by May 2026, actual funding not needed unt
il January 2028
• Other projects requesting funding from the Housing Trust Fund • Asteria Flats - $ 5,000,000
• Crossings at Woodberry - $ 1,692,000 (already committed) • Mather Veterans Village Phase 5 – a pprox. $6,000,000-$8,000,000 ITEM 3.4.
ATTACHMENT 2
SINGLE-FAMILY COMPONENT UPDATE
• Efforts are being continued to identify and select a market rate sin
gle-family developer
• Some consistent feedback has been:
• The relatively small site presents feasibility challenges • The elevated design aspirations are not optimally aligned with the buyer pr
ofile most typical for this market segment
• The city may consider a more active role in furthering the design a
nd development of this housing component
ITEM 3.4.
ATTACHMENT 2
• Multifamily:
A. Provide direction to Related to
s
ubmit for design review and
pursue a 2026 AHSC application
B. Provide direction to Related to
s
ubmit for a ministerial design
review, including feedback from
Planning Commission, and pursue a
2026 AHSC application
C. Pause the project until the single-
f
amily component can submit for
design review at the same time
D. Pause the project until a new plan
is
in place for the overall city site
• Single- family:
1. Continue efforts to identify a
s
ingle-family housing developer
2. Consider subsidizing the single-
f
amily component to gain
additional design flexibility and
potentially accelerate the timeline
for development
3. Pause the project until a new plan
is
in place for the overall city site
ALTERNATIVES FOR DISCUSSION
ITEM 3.4.
ATTACHMENT 2
THANK YOU
Questions & Comments
ITEM 3.4.
ATTACHMENT 2
ITEM 3.4.
ATTACHMENT 2
ITEM 3.4.
ATTACHMENT 2
ITEM 3.4.
ATTACHMENT 2