5PM City Council (Closed Session Begins @ 2:00 p.m.) [Updated 08/08/2022 @ 12:45 p.m.]
Meeting Time: 08-09-22 17:00
eComments Report
Meetings Meeting
Time
Agenda
Items
Comments Support Oppose Neutral
5PM City Council (Closed Session Begins
@ 2:00 p.m.) [Updated 08/08/2022 @
12:45 p.m.]
08-09-22
17:00
51 40 27 9 0
Sentiments for All Meetings
The following graphs display sentiments for comments that have location data. Only locations of users who have commented will be shown.
Overall Sentiment
5PM City Council (Closed Session Begins @ 2:00 p.m.) [Updated 08/08/2022 @ 12:45 p.m.] 08-09-22 17:00
Agenda Name Comments Support Oppose Neutral
5. City Council COVID-19 Response: ARPA Framework and Funding Priorities: North Sacramento Economic Recovery Plan Framework for ARPA Funds File ID: 2022-01309
1 1 0 0
6. City Council COVID-19 Response: ARPA Framework and Funding Priorities: Grant Agreement with California Black Chamber of Commerce Foundation for the Marginalized Community and Small Business Coalition Program File ID: 2022-01020
1 1 0 0
13. Green Means Go Grant Applications File ID: 2022-01348 1 0 0 0
26. (Pass for Publication) Ordinance Amending Chapter 12.24 of the Sacramento City Code Relating to Sidewalk Obstructions and Pedestrian Interference File ID: 2022-01515
25 22 1 0
30. Ordinance Adding Chapter 1.14 to the Sacramento City Code, Relating to Procedure for Mayor or Councilmember Vacancies, and Amending Chapter 2.40 of the Sacramento City Code, Relating to Boards and Commissions Generally
(Passed for Publication 07/19/2022; Published 07/22/2022) [Two-Thirds Vote Required]
File ID: 2022-01191
5 1 4 0
31. Evaluation of Reduced Residential Development Impact Fees for Affordable Dwelling Units File ID: 2022-01246
2 1 0 0
32. Administrative Approvals Associated with The Emergency Shelter and Enforcement Act of 2022 for Placement on the November 8, 2022 Municipal Election
File ID: 2022-01363
1 0 1 0
Public Comments-Matters Not on the Agenda 4 1 3 0
Sentiments for All Agenda Items
The following graphs display sentiments for comments that have location data. Only locations of users who have commented will be shown.
Overall Sentiment
Agenda Item: eComments for 5. City Council COVID-19 Response: ARPA Framework and Funding Priorities: North Sacramento Economic Recovery Plan Framework for ARPA Funds File ID: 2022-01309 Overall Sentiment
Daniel Savala
Location:
Submitted At: 6:38pm 08-06-22
Thankful to see this finally come to council. On behalf of the Del Paso Boulevard Partnership/PBID, I urge the council to support and vote yes.
Agenda Item: eComments for 6. City Council COVID-19 Response: ARPA Framework and Funding Priorities: Grant Agreement with California Black Chamber of Commerce Foundation for the Marginalized Community and Small Business Coalition Program File ID: 2022-01020
Overall Sentiment
Daniel Savala
Location:
Submitted At: 6:23pm 08-06-22
I own the building at 1805 Del Paso Boulevard.
Agenda Item: eComments for 13. Green Means Go Grant Applications File ID: 2022-01348 Overall Sentiment
Cathy Creswell
Location:
Submitted At: 11:11am 08-08-22
On behalf of the Sacramento Housing Alliance we are requesting that the Council provide direction to staff in developing the GMG application that the application commit to prioritizing affordable infill housing developments for use of any funds received. It is disappointing that the staff report only identifies consistency with the land use element and does not reference the City's housing element which specifically identifies the need to promote affordable infill development AND clearly identifies the significant and continuing unmet need for more affordable housing. Prioritizing affordable infill housing will ensure the City can meet its housing element, land use, AND climate goals! The application to SACOG must clearly commit the City to prioritizing affordable infill housing.
Agenda Item: eComments for 26. (Pass for Publication) Ordinance Amending Chapter 12.24 of the Sacramento City Code Relating to Sidewalk Obstructions and Pedestrian Interference File ID: 2022-01515 Overall Sentiment
Susan Brown
Location:
Submitted At: 10:21am 08-09-22
I support restricting camping in the public right-of-way, including sidewalks. People should not have to walk in the street or J-walk to avoid sidewalk camping blockades. The recent homeless count for the County showed a per capita rate of 59 homeless people per every 10,000 citizens, that’s a whole lot of consideration being given to a very small number of people. The city needs to set up massive unhoused communities ASAP , treating it as the emergency it is, and fix what is seriously broken in this community.
Richard Estes
Location:
Submitted At: 10:20am 08-09-22
I am opposed to this measure because the city has failed to take any meaningful measures to address the homelessness crisis in this city. Instead, the city proposes to criminalize the actions of people who overwhelmingly have no housing and no supportive services. In practice, the ordinance is likely to result in moving people around as they go from one place to another, which is apparently the city's homelessness policy.
Normally, the fact that so many people are on the sidewalk would spur people to action to provide necessary assistance, but here the city is doing the contrary.
Ben Testani
Location:
Submitted At: 10:09am 08-09-22
Criminalizing homelessness is vile. These are people in need of help not further harassment. This bill will also lose in court due to the 9th Circuit Martin v. Boise ruling, so passing and then defending this in court would be a tremendous waste of public funds.
Mel Burg
Location:
Submitted At: 9:22am 08-09-22
Please vote in support of this important item. Concerned, tax paying, voting, volunteering, good citizens need your help and support
Blanca Payton
Location:
Submitted At: 8:35am 08-09-22
It really concerns me that anyone is allowed to squatting on pedestrian sidewalks forcing many to walk on the streets where cars are passing by. It is a huge safety issue which is just a matter of time before someone gets hit by a passing car due to the sidewalks that are obstructing the pass-way for pedestrians. It also concerns me for my daughters safety who uses the light rail to go to work who has to walkthrough that sidewalk.
Ken Marks
Location:
Submitted At: 8:30am 08-09-22
This should be a slam dunk. And just common sense. Y es! Zoe HHarrison
Location:
Submitted At: 8:08am 08-09-22
This is common sense. Please do the right thing and affirm this ordinance.
Laurie Lucier
Location:
Submitted At: 7:50am 08-09-22
City sidewalks are for public use to transit from one place to another. Each and every person should have equal access. Why should some people have more right to the space than others? This situation needs to be fixed immediately.
Nora Juhasz
Location:
Submitted At: 7:24am 08-09-22
Y es!!
Tricia Stevens
Location:
Submitted At: 6:48am 08-09-22
The East Sacramento Community Association (ESCA) supports this sidewalk ordinance. Pedestrian safety for all, including the disabled, the elderly, children, and all residents, is as important as vehicular safety. There are so many areas where people must walk in the streets and it’s simply unsafe. We support the City efforts to find suitable housing for the unhoused, and we do not feel this is criminalization of the homeless, any more than prohibiting the blockage of streets.
Shannon Sutherland
Location:
Submitted At: 6:58pm 08-08-22
Merriam-Webster definition of "Sidewalk", "a paved walk for PEDESTRIANS at the side of a street" NOT a campground for drug addicts and mentally ill. I am a single woman and a resident of Midtown and East Sacramento since 1987. I used to feel safe here. Not any more. I have been harassed on my walks and while driving in my car when I pass these illegal encampments. PLEASE support this important ordinance! Nick Mirman
Location:
Submitted At: 6:53pm 08-08-22
Sidewalks are for pedestrian use, not for camping. Several sidewalks connecting midtown with east sacramento have been completely taken over - totally impossible to walk past without going into the street. This is a common sense ordinance - please pass it.
Christine Bostwick
Location:
Submitted At: 6:20pm 08-08-22
As a resident of East Sacramento I no longer feel safe walking to the light rail for my daily commute downtown as there is an encampment and illegal housing via the car on 39th street under the bridge. The increasing presence of the homeless community has intensified harassment and has become a normal occurrence in my neighborhood as well as the obstructions of sidewalks and roads. As a woman, it is no longer safe for me to enjoy my neighborhood with peace of mind and it desperately needs to be addressed. Please support this important ordinance and the will of your constituents.
Arthur McKenzie
Location:
Submitted At: 6:06pm 08-08-22
Sidewalks are for everyone's use. Always intended as such.This City has given too much tolerance to the homeless and if this Agenda item does not pass then it will represent yet another loss for citizens who want to live in a clean, organized, city.
Melanie Figueroa
Location:
Submitted At: 6:05pm 08-08-22
As a resident of Elmhurst I no longer feel safe walking my dogs in my neighborhood due to the increasing presence of the homeless community. Being harassed and followed has become a normal occurrence as well the obstruction of sidewalks and roads. It’s no longer safe for residents and it desperately needs to be addressed.
Please support this ordinance and support the will of your constituents.
Louise Wright
Location:
Submitted At: 4:29pm 08-08-22
Sidewalks are for pedestrian purposes, those who rely on them to get around including the elderly, those in wheelchairs, disabled, mothers with strollers, etc. Sidewalks are NOT campgrounds.
STEVEN MAVIGLIO
Location:
Submitted At: 4:14pm 08-08-22
I tried to walk home today from Midtown with a friend and her children. However, on the 39th Street underpass (Route 50), a massive tent has been constructed that blocks the entire sidewalk. Not an inch to go around it.
Upon calling 311, I was told it wouldn't even be seen by anyone from the city for 2-3 weeks at best. I'm all for this ordinance -- as well as funding for public safety officers to enforce it.
Amy Gardner
Location:
Submitted At: 12:07pm 08-08-22
The ability to use our sidewalks for the purposes intended is the most pedestrian of requests. As the name implies, a sidewalk is an area on the side of a road for walking. In many areas of the City sidewalks are impassable, causing disabled people in wheelchairs, scooters, crutches, walkers or canes to have to walk in vehicular traffic. Any walker, runner or bicyclist is dodging large piles of garbage, unleashed dogs and sometimes people having psychotic episodes. Asking for 4 feet of passable space is a reasonable request that will benefit everyone in the city. Additionally, have an ordinance that keeps storefronts clear is a benefit to the businesses that operate in the City of Sacramento.
Nick Kufasimes
Location:
Submitted At: 8:46am 08-08-22
Sidewalks are for pedestrian purposes. Neighbors should be able to freely walk and feel safe on city sidewalks and not risk their life by having to step onto the street to go around unhoused camps.
Nick Kufasimes
ESCA (East Sacramento Community Association)
MESA(Midtown East Sacramento Advocates)
Kristina Rogers
Location:
Submitted At: 4:46pm 08-07-22
This is an ordinance that seems like common sense, yet some will apposed it because they really are not looking at the entire population in Sacramento. Our pubic sidewalks need to be available for the PUBLIC including those who rely on them to get around including the elderly, those in wheelchairs, disabled, mothers with strollers, etc.
While our city continues to find ways to support those in need, they are also obligated to ensure the quality of life continues for every citizen in Sacramento. Public Sidewalks are a very basic, and very important need! Aimee Hernandez
Location:
Submitted At: 1:34pm 08-07-22
I can't believe this is even up for discussion. Enforce the rules for everyone.
Karen KM
Location:
Submitted At: 12:15pm 08-07-22
It's absolutely absurd that we are NOT able to walk to and from Land Park to Midtown/Downtown without having to jeopardize ourselves by walking in the street to avoid the drug addicted and unhoused that are lying on the street and blocking the right of way. Please pass this ordinance.
Gregory Van Acker
Location:
Submitted At: 11:14am 08-06-22
I support.
Veronica Morgan
Location:
Submitted At: 9:55am 08-06-22
Please pass
Andy Rolleri
Location:
Submitted At: 3:52pm 08-05-22
As a long time resident and homeowner in Land Park, I am sympathetic to the homeless residents of our city. I do believe we can do more to help them, I also believe I should be able to safely traverse the sidewalks in my neighborhood. I don’t think they are mutually exclusive and this is why I support this ordnance.
Agenda Item: eComments for 30. Ordinance Adding Chapter 1.14 to the Sacramento City Code, Relating to Procedure for Mayor or Councilmember Vacancies, and Amending Chapter 2.40 of the Sacramento City Code, Relating to Boards and Commissions Generally
(Passed for Publication 07/19/2022; Published 07/22/2022) [Two-Thirds Vote Required] File ID: 2022-01191
Overall Sentiment
Charlene Jones
Location:
Submitted At: 7:57am 08-09-22
As a member of League of Women Voters, we feel strongly that volunteer boards and commissions be equipped to manage effectively, as they elevate community voices and advise the legislative bodies of government. We reiterate our opposition to city ordinance language that disallows the use of Commission/Board ad hoc committees. The rationale for such a proposal continues to be unclear.
In addition, the proposed ordinance and Council rules of procedure fail to lay out a process by which Commission/Board recommendations are addressed in a timely and responsive manner. Given these vital "procedural" considerations for community engagement with our city's legislative bodies, what is proposed could undermine the purpose of advisory bodies and be seen as dismissing volunteer work to improve our city. Now is your opportunity to revise what is proposed and create a more productive process. Thank you for your deliberations.
Jeff Solomon
Location:
Submitted At: 7:35am 08-09-22
I strongly oppose the prohibition of "boards and commissions from establishing standing committees and ad hoc committees." If this is an attempt to standardize things between Commissions, it is wrong headed. In fact, this would do the opposite of the goal stated in the staff report, "To assist the City Council and city-appointed board, commission, and committee members to achieve the high levels of professional service our community expects, " I also think that various Commission members should be able to determine who would best serve as Chairperson without a term limit rule.
Barry F. Boyd
Location:
Submitted At: 5:25am 08-09-22
Discussion Calendar #30
Please attend today's (August 9, 2022) City Council Meeting at 5pm to voice and/or ecomment your concerns about Amending Chapter 2.40 of the Sacramento City Code, Relating to Boards and Commissions Generally, such as:
*Prohibits boards and commissions from establishing standing committees and ad hoc committees. *Limits the amount of service as a chairperson to one consecutive term to create opportunity for more voices to serve in this capacity.
Both request should be removed so, Sacramento City Boards and Commissions can continue to do the work outside of the monthly and/or twice monthly scheduled meetings that are for the benefit of the residents of Sacramento and, not allowing an individual and/or special interest to control what's best for the residents of Sacramento.
Also, not allowing to waive Rule 7, section K.1 of the Council Rules of Procedure which "requires" ordinances to be referred to the Law and Legislation Committee "before" coming to council.
Paula Lee
Location:
Submitted At: 5:34pm 08-08-22
Paula Lee on behalf of the League of Women Voters Sacramento County Oppose amending Chapter 2.40 as written
Short summary here. Full letter submitted to Council attached.
1. We reiterate our opposition to city ordinance language that disallows the use of ad hocs. The rationale for such a proposal continues to be unclear. i.e. the difference between a working group’s composition and an ad hoc.
It is not practical to do the work of an adhoc committee during a regular meeting.
2. Commission Reports are sometimes received on the City Council’s “consent calendar” without discussion, presentation, or further action. This undermines the purpose of advisory bodies For reasons outlined more thoroughly in the attached letter, we ask:
1) the proposed city code 2.40.160 be removed from debate; and 2) the proposed city code 2.40 incorporate language that would require the City Council to consider Commission recommendations in a prompt and responsive fashion.
Thank you for your consideration.
Graciela Castillo-Krings
Location:
Submitted At: 2:04pm 08-08-22
SCPRC is supportive of creating a standardized process for boards and commissions, but would like to see a few changes to ordinance as outlined in our letter.
Agenda Item: eComments for 31. Evaluation of Reduced Residential Development Impact Fees for Affordable Dwelling Units File ID: 2022-01246
Overall Sentiment
Rosa Trevizo
Location:
Submitted At: 8:21am 08-09-22
Since adopting this program three and a half years ago, the City has benefited in having over 2,000 dwelling units participate in the fee reduction program. While production of affordable units has been recognized as a priority at all levels of government, a shortage of more than a million housing units remains in the state. According to the Regional Housing Needs Assessment, over 45,000 of these housing units are needed in the City of Sacramento by 2029. The continuation of the fee reduction program will help extend the levels of construction we are seeing now, assist with alleviating housing shortfalls and help the City of Sacramento in meeting its regional housing target. Understanding the desire to recoup impact fee revenue, the BIA is supportive of staff’s recommendation to utilize Measure U funds as the preferred source for fund restoration.
Matthew Kessing
Location:
Submitted At: 9:10am 08-08-22
I support continuing the program. In the face of the current housing shortage, anything that increases the number of new affordable units being built should be actively pursued, or in this case, continued. The replacement funds have already been approved via Measure U; take it back from the police department if you have to.
Agenda Item: eComments for 32. Administrative Approvals Associated with The Emergency Shelter and Enforcement Act of 2022 for Placement on the November 8, 2022 Municipal Election File ID: 2022-01363
Overall Sentiment
Bob Erlenbusch
Location:
Submitted At: 7:27am 08-09-22
The Sacramento Regional Coalition to End Homelessness is strongly opposed to the City Council placing this ill conceived ordinance on the November ballot. The process to get the ordinance this far was a very bad public policy process and a huge miscalculation by the authors thinking the city action would leverage the County in to action. This has not happened and if placed on the ballot and passed, this will mean that the city's homeless "spaces" will be without key social services. Finally, the yes campaigns materials states that the City could use Measure U funds to support this measure, funds that are already desperately needed to support other city staff and services. We all want safe streets and safe parks but this measure is the wrong approach and any attempt to re-write it might make it better on the margins, but will not be the comprehensive solution our community needs.
Do NOT place this on the ballot.
Agenda Item: eComments for Public Comments-Matters Not on the Agenda Overall Sentiment
Daisy Yee
Location:
Submitted At: 9:45am 08-09-22
The fight goes on with Front Street for over 2 years now. Vice Mayor Angelique Ashby, so much for you telling Howard Chan,Tom Pace, and Phillip Zimmerman to get Front Street Animal Shelter back to its pre-pandemic state. In my opinion, it was just a stunt to get the animal advocates of this community to vote for you in the June primary. It's obvious by the current state of Front Street Animal Shelter that you are all talk and no action. Also, why should taxpayers continue to pay for a "public" shelter that is clearly not providing services to its community. I see now that owner surrenders are sent to the Sacramento SPCA. Other shelters try to get animals adopted via social media but Phillip does nothing. Explains why he keeps euthanizing animals. It's time for new management or time to dissolve the public shelter and give that money as grants to rescues that are doing his job. A better use for his salary would be to use it to help rescues with TNR.
Kim Petersen
Location:
Submitted At: 12:20am 08-09-22
I've done rescue & animal advocacy for 20 years, U.S. & internationally. I understand the difficulties, hard realities & hurdles Front Street Shelter faces. But we must find solutions & innovative approaches to sheltering that do NOT include telling the public to keep stray animals they've found (at their expense) or jump through ridiculous hoops just to take a stray TO the shelter. Good samaritans stop to help a lost or injured animal & get no help from animal control. If the shelter management is not going to do their job, then the rescues, independent rescuers & citizens should start sending a bill for services rendered to the City of Sacramento for every animal they've rescued, sheltered & cared for because the shelter would not do their jobs. Animals are not being properly advertised on social media & other venues creating significant loss of opportunity to locate owners &/or new homes! We need NEW MANAGEMENT & a COMPLETE AUDIT of Shelter operations, policies & procedures! Kristina Rogers
Location:
Submitted At: 4:56pm 08-07-22
I agree with Scott Govenar's comments below. There have been several attacks from mentally ill, drugged out people in Land Park. One female jogger was running around 6am on Sutterville Road and was knocked down, then jumped on by a vagrant. He was trying to take her clothes off when a nearby golfer came to help. Also, last week a person hung themselves from a tree at the train tracks behind the zoo. The local news didn't mention it.
The Old Train Museum brings loads of families down that track - thank goodness the conductor saw the hung person ahead before he go too close for the children to see. This is happening way too often. We can't stop every tragedy, but a robust outreach team, well-supported law enforcement and easy access to any services (city and county) would make a big dent! Oh yes, and go after the DRUG DEALERS who sell their poison and encourage all the criminal/crazy behavior.
Scott Govenar
Location:
Submitted At: 10:45am 08-07-22
Having reviewed all of the agenda items, there is little dealing with crime and homelessness, which is appalling. I know two people who in the past month have been the victims of violent crimes, including my 14 year old son.
The number of homeless encampments, including those with people routinely shooting up, increases by the day.
It's gotten to the point where law-abiding citizens have become victims, relegated to our homes, while Council does nothing. Sacramento, and the state, makes third world nations look good by comparison. If Council is not prepared or willing to make tough choices to help the majority and ensure basic public safety, then Council members have failed at their most basic duties and should step down. Enough it enough. 1 | P a g e
August 8, 2022
Mayor and City Council, City of Sacramento
915 I Street, 1st Floor,
Sacramento, CA 95814
RE: Discussion Calendar Item #30: Ordinance amending Chapter 2.40 of the Sacramento City Code, Relating Boards and Commissions Generally
Dear Mayor and Councilmembers,
The Sacramento Community Police Review Commission (SCPRC) is supportive of having a written policy that standardizes procedures across city boards and commissions. However, we believe additional clarifying amendments are needed to ensure this policy does not inadvertently hinder the ability of boards and commissions to do the important work they were created to do.
As the chair and vice-chair of the SCPRC, we write to respectfully request that the City Council make three clarifying amendments to the proposed ordinance amending Chapter 2.40 of the Sacramento City Code.
Specifically, we request the following changes:
Request #1: Amend Section 2.40.160 to allow boards and commissions to continue meeting in Brown Act-compliant ad hoc committees.
Background Information: The current language in the ordinance prohibits boards and commissions from creating standing or ad hoc committees. If the Commission is to meet its mandate of “monitoring the implementation, evaluation, and sustainability of city policing initiatives and programs” (Sacramento City Code Chapter 2.110.020), it is crucial that City Council clarify in the ordinance that working groups that do not violate the Brown Act are allowed to continue to exist or eliminate this section entirely to allow standing and ad hoc committees to exist in compliance with the Brown Act.
The SCPRC currently meets publicly at a maximum about 10 times a year. Our commissioners routinely work in small workgroups to do research, analyze complex policy, and meet with Sacramento Police Department and community stakeholders to solicit their input and feedback as we draft recommendations.
Members of the public have long been invited to provide comments to our workgroups. Any information gathered and policy recommendations must be brought to the larger body for discussion and action. These working groups are always less than a quorum, and have no authority to make any decisions or move anything forward until the full body meets and the matter is discussed publicly.
Based on the comments made by the members of the Personnel and Public Employees Committee on May 24, 2022, when the item was discussed, and a subsequent meeting with the City Clerk, the stated intent behind this language is to enhance transparency and community participation. It is our understanding that the Brown Act does not preclude these small working groups from existing, as long as these consist of less than a quorum of the SCPRC, are composed solely of members SCPRC, do not have some “continuing subject matter jurisdiction,” and do not have a meeting schedule fixed by formal action of a larger body.
The City Clerk and members of the City Attorney’s office have assured us we will still be able to perform the same functions we have done in our current Ad Hoc Committees. However, we remain concerned that the lack of written clarification within the proposed ordinance will not guarantee these assurances and 2 | P a g e
could be interpreted by future council members or staff to be a prohibition on creating Brown Act compliant working groups. Even if they were allowed, it begs the question of how transparent or participatory such working groups would ultimately be. According to the City Clerk, we would no longer be required to establish these working groups in public meetings and would no longer need to report updates on their work or discussions at public meetings. Such working groups would not only create less transparency but they would actually damage the trust between our commission and the community members rather than encouraging their participation.
Request #2: Amend Section 2.40.170 (a) to allow Chairpersons and vice-chairpersons to serve no less than two consecutive terms and provide continuity contingencies for commissions and boards.
Background: The current section of this ordinance prohibits Chairpersons and vice-chairpersons from serving more than one consecutive one-year term. We request the City Council to change this section to allow Chairpersons and Vice-chairpersons to serve at least two consecutive terms and create a clause that will allow the current Chair or Vice-chair to serve beyond this term limit if there are no volunteers who accept these positions.
Most people serving on boards and commissions are volunteers. When these volunteers step into a leadership role and must follow city processes and procedures, there is often a learning curve that requires a great deal of time and orientation to effectively serve in these roles. Giving the chair and vice chair the opportunity to serve in this capacity for two years would help be more effective in conducting the affairs of the Commission and thus serving the community in a more impactful manner.
Request #3: Add a new Section to the ordinance that will standardize the process for how board or commission recommendations are submitted to the City Council.
Background Information: One of the frustrations that the SCPRC and other Commissions have experienced is the lack of process for how recommendations submitted to the City Council are handled. In fact,the City Council met on March 22nd and voted to have the Personnel and Public Employees Committee explore addressing this problem. This ordinance provides a perfect opportunity for the City Council to establish a standardized process to ensure the time and effort of volunteers is respected and that the work they produce in these bodies is considered in a timely manner. To that end we recommend that, whenever a board or commission submits a policy recommendation for City Council consideration, it be agendized for the Law and Legislation Committee’s evaluation.
We recommend the following language be added to the ordinance:
2.40.210. Whenever a board or commission submits policy recommendations to the City Council, these recommendations shall be agendized first for consideration by by either the Budget Committee and/or the Law and Legislation Committee within 90 days of submission. The board or commission shall be invited to send a representative to present the recommendations.
Request #4: Add a new Section to establish a clear process for direct communications between city staff and members of boards or commissions.
Background Information: Standard practice for boards or commissions is to funnel any formal request, presentations, or reports to any city department through the Board’s or Commission’s assigned staff.
While this allows for formal tracking of requests and workload management, it has also created situations where city staff do not feel they can respond directly to inquiries made by board members or commissioners. At least for the SCPRC, this has led to misunderstandings and miscommunications that 3 | P a g e
could be avoided by simply creating a clear process that allows direct communication between the appointed bodies and city departments such as the Sacramento Police Department or the City Manager’s Office.
We recommend the following language be added to the ordinance:
2.40.211. Members of city board or commission may communicate directly in writing with city staff as long as the assigned staff for the board or commission is included in any correspondence.
We appreciate the work that is being done to create a standardized process that will improve the operations of boards and commissions in our city. The requested changes will not only bring clarity to the ordinance, but will also validate the work that is being done by the volunteers serving on these important bodies.
Sincerely,
Graciela Castillo-Krings Keyan Bliss
Chair, SCPRC Vice Chair, SCPRC
Mario Guerrero Richard Falcon
Commissioner, SCPRC Commissioner, SCPRC
Basim Elkarra
Commissioner, SCPRC
Cc:
Mayor Darrell Steinberg
Vice Mayor Angelique Ashby, District 1
Mayor Pro Tem, Eric Guerra, District 6
Councilmember Sean Loloee, District 2
Councilmember Jeff Harris, District 3
Councilmember Katie Valenzuela, District 4
Councilmember Rick Jennings, District 7
Councilmember Mai Vang, District 8
City Manager Howard Chan, City of Sacramento
City Clerk Mindy Cuppy, City of Sacramento
921 11th Street, Suite 700 Sacramento, CA 95814 (916) 447-8683 (916) 447-8620 lwvsacramento.org
August 8, 2022
Subject: City Council Meeting Agenda August 9, 2022 Item No. 30
Honorable Sacramento Mayor and City Council Members,
As you may recall, the League of Women Voters of Sacramento County (League) submitted a letter to the Personnel & Public Employees Committee in opposition to proposed changes to city code (Chapter
2.40, Article III. 2.40.160) which would prohibit establishment of standing and ad hoc committees of any city commission or board. We also sent a subsequent letter to the full City Council and our city’s boards and commissions clarifying the League’s “good governance” advocacy history and support for transparency of City Council ad hoc committees. We have not called for the prohibition of boards and commissions to use ad hoc committees, knowing how indispensable these mechanisms can be to carrying out their responsibilities.
We reiterate our opposition to city ordinance language that disallows the use of ad hocs. The rationale for such a proposal continues to be unclear. The questions of transparency or concerns with Brown Act adherence fail to substantiate such a drastic restriction of means to get the job done. While mention of boards and commissions employing a “working group” to serve in lieu of an ad hoc committee has been made, the difference between a working group’s composition and an ad hoc remains unclear.
Forming ad hoc committees to address issues is common in California among legislative and advisory bodies. Literally meaning “for this” in Latin, ad hoc bodies are formed for a specific purpose and are temporary. The committees aren’t subject to the Brown Act, although the city’s Sunshine Ordinance would signify that reporting back by ad hoc committees to the respective board or commission at a public recorded meeting would address transparency. Without the availability of ad hoc committees, commissions and boards would be required to extend public meetings beyond what is reasonable or practical, while attempting to meet their range of obligations.
In addition, the proposed ordinance changes fail to address what has been long advocated by the Sacramento Community Police Review Commission and supported by the League, referenced in our May 23, 2022 letter as a proposed addition to the city ordinance:
Add 2.40.210. One concern we have heard from volunteers serving on city boards and commissions is that, after their recommendations are submitted to the City Council, there is no clear process or timeline which the Council uses to consider these recommendations. Reports are sometimes received on the City Council’s “consent calendar” without discussion, presentation, or further action. This undermines the purpose of advisory bodies and could be seen as dismissing the work of residents who serve on boards and commissions to improve their city……cont. 1 of 2
The ordinance could provide: 2.40.210. Whenever a board or commission submits policy recommendations to the City Council, these recommendations shall be agendized first for consideration by the Law and Legislation Committee within 90 days of submission. A representative of the board or commission shall be invited to present the recommendations.
The League was proud to support Mayor Steinberg and the Council in early 2017 as they approved community-led reforms to make Sacramento a model of more accountable government. We must assure that our boards and commissions are equipped to manage effectively as volunteer members who elevate community voices and advise the legislative bodies of government.
For these reasons, we ask:
1) the proposed city code 2.40.160 (Standing and ad hoc committees. City boards and commissions may not establish standing committees or ad hoc committees) be removed from debate; and 2) the proposed city code 2.40 incorporate language that would require the City Council to consider Commission recommendations in a prompt and responsive fashion.
The League carries a legacy of serving in two distinct roles. One is broad non-partisan voter service.
The other is advocacy through grassroots work to improve policies and laws that affect our larger communities. In this second role, we submit this position and thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Paula Lee
Paula Lee, President
League of Women Voters of Sacramento County
[email protected] (916) 447-8683
1536 Eureka Road o: 916 677 5717 Roseville, CA 95661 northstatebia.org August 9, 2022 Members of the Sacramento City Council City of Sacramento 915 I Street, 1st Floor Sacramento, CA 95814 RE: August 9, 2022 City Council Regular Meeting Discussion Item 31 Honorable City Council Members, The North State Building Industry Association (BIA) represents over 500 member companies in the homebuilding industry. We thank the City for its proactive approach in bringing more affordable development to Sacramento and are writing today to express support for the continuation of the reduced residential development impact fee program for affordable dwelling units. Since adopting this program three and a half years ago, the City has benefited in having over 2,000 dwelling units participate in the fee reduction program. While production of affordable units has been recognized as a priority at all levels of government, a shortage of more than a million housing units remains in the state. According to the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA), over 45,000 of these housing units are needed in the City of Sacramento by 2029. The continuation of the fee reduction program will help extend the levels of construction we are seeing now, assist with alleviating housing shortfalls and help the City of Sacramento in meeting its regional housing target. Understanding the desire to recoup impact fee revenue, the BIA is supportive of staff’s recommendation to utilize Measure U funds as the preferred source for fund restoration. The increased production of affordable dwelling units supported by the reduced residential development impact fee program is justification to support the program for its successes. Construction of affordable housing units in the City of Sacramento is crucial, and we humbly ask that you continue the reduced residential development impact fee program for affordable dwelling units. Sincerely, Rosa Trevizo Legislative Advocate North State Building Industry Association