I would urge City Councilmembers to reconsider an agency where the demographic they plan to serve is not represented in their organization. Mosaic Solutions and Advocacy have no public track record of success, as well as no lived experience, so it’s difficult for me as a citizen to feel as though this is an informed, cost effective choice. Could Mosaic Solutions provide a public report on their plan of action following any of these options?
As a member of the Sacramento Continuum of Care (CoC) Board, I write to attest to its value to our community, Throughout my three years on the Board, I have witnessed and participated in thoughtful, informed, and creative discussions and decision-making. The result has been to effectively bring key federal funding into our county to help our unhoused neighbors as they stabilize their lives and pursue permanent housing. With recent federal policy changes, the CoC Board and Sacramento Steps Forward (SSF) staff have been nimble and responsive. I urge the City Council to recognize the value of this remarkable resource within our region, and to avoid disrupting its effectiveness. The CoC Board has recently become even stronger with the addition of two County Supervisors, and two Sacramento City Councilmember's. These elected officials join a Board consisting of persons with lived experience, City staff from throughout the county, County Staff, law enforcement representatives, business representatives, social service providers, and more. Among the three presented options, I endorse Option 1 since it leaves the current CoC governance structure in place. I endorse all efforts at better coordination among all the communities working to help our unhoused neighbors. The CoC Board welcomes that coordination and has sought to facilitate it in its current governance structure. Therefore, if you must endorse a change, please pursue Option 1.
My name is David Whitesel. I am a resident of Sundance Lake and I am submitting this comment on the Joint Powers Authority framework discussion in Item 4.
I want to begin by acknowledging that the homelessness crisis in Sacramento is real, that it requires sustained institutional commitment, and that a well-designed partnership structure between the City and County could produce better outcomes than either jurisdiction working independently. I am not here to oppose partnership.
I am here because I have watched, firsthand, what happens when shelter siting authority is delegated with insufficient accountability built into the governing framework — and it is very difficult to add those accountability structures back in after the framework has been adopted.
The residents of North Natomas learned in 2025 that a 40-unit micro-community with permanent infrastructure had been selected for 3511 Arena Boulevard under an ordinance that was passed in 2023 to authorize temporary emergency shelters. Community meetings were organized by Councilmember Kaplan because the City scheduled none. Responses from staff were contradictory. CEQA review has not been completed. The community's ability to meaningfully participate came after the decision was made, not before it.
A Joint Powers Authority is a new governmental entity. It will have its own governing board, its own administrative structure, and its own claim to authority. If that authority includes shelter siting decisions — and I expect that it will — then the accountability questions I just described become structural, not situational.
I am asking this Council to ensure that the JPA framework, before it is finalized, address the following:
1. CEQA lead agency designation. Who is responsible for conducting environmental review on JPA-approved shelter projects, and what is the timeline and public notification standard required before a site is selected?
2. Community notification. What is the minimum notification period for residents adjacent to a proposed site, and is that notification required before or after site selection?
3. Council authority. Does the JPA framework preserve or reduce the City Council's authority to weigh in on individual shelter siting decisions? If it reduces that authority, what is the public accountability mechanism?
4. Voter-approved siting restrictions. Does the JPA framework explicitly require compliance with Measure O's siting buffer requirements, or does it claim an exemption from voter-approved restrictions?
These are not hypothetical concerns. They are the exact questions that arose at 3511 Arena Boulevard, and they arose because the governing framework — Ordinance 2023-00995 — did not address them clearly. The Council now has the opportunity to design a framework that does.
Community members who have followed the Arena Boulevard situation will be watching how these questions are answered. I respectfully ask that this comment be part of the record that informs the framework you direct staff to develop.
I do not believe a JPA will significantly advance better outcomes for our unhoused neighbors. The CoC has made a number of changes in the last few years that have improved their processes and outcomes. It now includes elected officials (who could have been participating all along). And staff from the City and County of Sacramento and from other cities have always been on the CoC and presumably have been reporting back to their respective Councils and Board of Supervisors. While greater coordination between the Cities and County could be beneficial and should be pursued, it doesn't require diluting or virtually eliminating the current CoC. I welcome greater engagement and collaboration between local governments, which could include adopting regional affordable housing funding mechanisms and common and supportive incentive programs. The City of Sacramento often leads the region in innovative affordable housing strategies, but without meaningful contributions by other local governments we can not make the progress our disadvantaged communities deserve! If the City insists on changing the current system, Option 1 would do the least harm to the existing CoC and process. So I urge the City to adopt Option 1. And ensure that the JPA is used to push adoption of meaningful affordable housing strategies that provide permanent supportive housing for people experiencing homelessness, that keep people in their homes, and builds and preserves critical affordable housing at the scale needed for our communities.
When we as a society (city, county, community etc.) keep re-arranging bureaucratic structures that are responsible for “managing” a human crisis like homelessness, we are continuously taking away from the people in our city who need support the most. The people most impacted don’t have seats at the table and their voices are not heard. When you listen, they will tell you they want the stability of a home above all else. All 3 of these proposed options will take precious dollars and resources away from filling that need.
System change is something I typically support, but not with proposals like this that suck up dollars we could be using towards housing and supportive services. These proposed options support boards of elected officials with relatively no insight into the traumas of living unhoused in Sacramento today who will be charged with making critical decisions about providing essential and life-saving services. The solution to homelessness is more housing that is deeply affordable and that people on fixed incomes and/or at minimal income levels can afford alongside low-barrier services that allow folks the dignity of choice, autonomy and recognizes their humanity comes first.
I am a student at the McGeorge School of Law, and I support the first option for the JPA framework. Continuums of Care (CoCs) are the primary federal framework for addressing homelessness. They are collaborative networks composed of nonprofit providers, victim service organizations, faith-based groups, governments, businesses, advocates, public housing agencies, and mental health providers.
While CoCs must meet core federal requirements, they otherwise have flexibility in their size, leadership, membership, and structure. Research by Meghan Jarpe shows that CoCs with more diverse membership tend to achieve better outcomes, but also identifies a trade-off between advocacy and service coordination. Specifically, CoCs that focus heavily on political advocacy may experience larger service gaps.
A JPA structure helps address this trade-off by allowing elected officials to take a leading role in advocacy, while the CoC remains focused on its federally mandated service functions. For this reason, I support Option 1, in which the CoC Board remains separate. This approach preserves the CoC’s specialized role and reduces the risk to federal funding, while still strengthening regional advocacy through the JPA.
Study:
Meghan Jarpe et al., Understanding the Collaborative Planning Process in Homeless Services: Networking, Advocacy, and Local Government Support May Reduce Service Gaps Links to an external site., J Public Health Manag Pract. (2019).
We support creating a Joint Powers Authority to better coordinate policy and budgets across the City, County, and State.
That said, we want to make sure community voices are truly part of this process before the structure is finalized. It’s important that this new entity builds in real transparency and accountability from the start. We’re asking for clear, accessible ways for residents to participate in decisions, to share input before major actions are taken, and to raise concerns or challenge decisions when needed.
Simple things like open public meetings, timely notice, and clear channels for feedback will go a long way in building trust and making sure the communities affected are genuinely heard.
Re: Community voices must be heard before the JPA structure is locked in.
We appreciate the intent behind establishing a Joint Powers Authority (JPA) to improve policy alignment and budget coordination among the City, County, and State. At the same time, we respectfully request that this new entity include strong safeguards to ensure transparency, meaningful community input, and public accountability. Specifically, we ask that clear processes be established for community members to participate in decision-making, provide input before major actions are taken, and challenge or appeal decisions when concerns arise. Ensuring accessible public meetings, timely notice, and defined avenues for feedback and oversight will be critical to building trust and protecting the interests of the communities impacted by JPA actions.
Considerations: How will this transition impact current systems such as Coordinated Access, SHRA waitlists, and 311 related Department of Community Response protocols?
How will it impact clients currently on waitlists and in any affected program?
How will this meaningfully impact access to housing?
Who currently holds power and who will power be transferred to?
Who are the experts related to this issue?
Are unhoused or formerly unhoused people afforded decision making power or agency anywhere in this proposal?
Have they been consulted in any meaningful way in the development of this proposal?
Many Sacramentans who are concerned about the hardships experienced by most homeless people in Sacramento would be encouraged by a meaningful partnership between the city and county, as this would almost certainly improve the cost effectiveness of local efforts. Noting that the county has a Jail Population Reduction Plan, and that the city's incessant sweeping of homeless people who have nowhere else to go and often end up in jail for repeated visits after repeated sweeps which is just churn which increases the jail population and public expenses for no good reason, an organized and mutually agreeable partnership between local governments seems like a very good idea.
Good evening mayor, council, and community members,
I’m here to raise urgent concerns about the City of Sacramento’s proposed Title 17 zoning changes that would eliminate long-standing sensitive-use protections.
These changes would allow marijuana dispensaries and on-site consumption lounges to locate directly next to churches and places of worship, parks, drug and alcohol rehabilitation centers, youth-serving facilities, after-school programs, and residential neighborhoods.
Churches and places of worship serve as community anchors — providing youth programs, counseling, food distribution, and family support. Parks are where children play and families gather. These are exactly the types of environments Measure U is meant to protect and invest in.
From a Measure U perspective, this creates a serious contradiction. The City is investing millions into youth programs, violence prevention, homelessness services, and recovery support — while simultaneously considering land use policies that place cannabis businesses next to the very environments those programs are designed to protect.
We already require armed security at dispensaries because of the known risks — high cash volume, product value, and crime targeting. Expanding these uses without buffers increases clustering, increases exposure, and increases public safety costs, especially around churches, parks, and youth-centered spaces.
A Conditional Use Permit is not a safeguard — we have already seen cases in Sacramento where incompatible uses were approved despite strong community opposition.
I urge this Commission to formally review these Title 17 changes and provide a recommendation to City Council that preserves sensitive-use buffers — especially around churches and parks — and aligns land use policy with the City’s public health and safety investments.
Because if we fund these community spaces on one hand, and remove protections around them on the other — we are undermining our own work.
Please share this with somebody that you think has not been properly informed by the city.
I would urge City Councilmembers to reconsider an agency where the demographic they plan to serve is not represented in their organization. Mosaic Solutions and Advocacy have no public track record of success, as well as no lived experience, so it’s difficult for me as a citizen to feel as though this is an informed, cost effective choice. Could Mosaic Solutions provide a public report on their plan of action following any of these options?
As a member of the Sacramento Continuum of Care (CoC) Board, I write to attest to its value to our community, Throughout my three years on the Board, I have witnessed and participated in thoughtful, informed, and creative discussions and decision-making. The result has been to effectively bring key federal funding into our county to help our unhoused neighbors as they stabilize their lives and pursue permanent housing. With recent federal policy changes, the CoC Board and Sacramento Steps Forward (SSF) staff have been nimble and responsive. I urge the City Council to recognize the value of this remarkable resource within our region, and to avoid disrupting its effectiveness. The CoC Board has recently become even stronger with the addition of two County Supervisors, and two Sacramento City Councilmember's. These elected officials join a Board consisting of persons with lived experience, City staff from throughout the county, County Staff, law enforcement representatives, business representatives, social service providers, and more. Among the three presented options, I endorse Option 1 since it leaves the current CoC governance structure in place. I endorse all efforts at better coordination among all the communities working to help our unhoused neighbors. The CoC Board welcomes that coordination and has sought to facilitate it in its current governance structure. Therefore, if you must endorse a change, please pursue Option 1.
My name is David Whitesel. I am a resident of Sundance Lake and I am submitting this comment on the Joint Powers Authority framework discussion in Item 4.
I want to begin by acknowledging that the homelessness crisis in Sacramento is real, that it requires sustained institutional commitment, and that a well-designed partnership structure between the City and County could produce better outcomes than either jurisdiction working independently. I am not here to oppose partnership.
I am here because I have watched, firsthand, what happens when shelter siting authority is delegated with insufficient accountability built into the governing framework — and it is very difficult to add those accountability structures back in after the framework has been adopted.
The residents of North Natomas learned in 2025 that a 40-unit micro-community with permanent infrastructure had been selected for 3511 Arena Boulevard under an ordinance that was passed in 2023 to authorize temporary emergency shelters. Community meetings were organized by Councilmember Kaplan because the City scheduled none. Responses from staff were contradictory. CEQA review has not been completed. The community's ability to meaningfully participate came after the decision was made, not before it.
A Joint Powers Authority is a new governmental entity. It will have its own governing board, its own administrative structure, and its own claim to authority. If that authority includes shelter siting decisions — and I expect that it will — then the accountability questions I just described become structural, not situational.
I am asking this Council to ensure that the JPA framework, before it is finalized, address the following:
1. CEQA lead agency designation. Who is responsible for conducting environmental review on JPA-approved shelter projects, and what is the timeline and public notification standard required before a site is selected?
2. Community notification. What is the minimum notification period for residents adjacent to a proposed site, and is that notification required before or after site selection?
3. Council authority. Does the JPA framework preserve or reduce the City Council's authority to weigh in on individual shelter siting decisions? If it reduces that authority, what is the public accountability mechanism?
4. Voter-approved siting restrictions. Does the JPA framework explicitly require compliance with Measure O's siting buffer requirements, or does it claim an exemption from voter-approved restrictions?
These are not hypothetical concerns. They are the exact questions that arose at 3511 Arena Boulevard, and they arose because the governing framework — Ordinance 2023-00995 — did not address them clearly. The Council now has the opportunity to design a framework that does.
Community members who have followed the Arena Boulevard situation will be watching how these questions are answered. I respectfully ask that this comment be part of the record that informs the framework you direct staff to develop.
Thank you.
I do not believe a JPA will significantly advance better outcomes for our unhoused neighbors. The CoC has made a number of changes in the last few years that have improved their processes and outcomes. It now includes elected officials (who could have been participating all along). And staff from the City and County of Sacramento and from other cities have always been on the CoC and presumably have been reporting back to their respective Councils and Board of Supervisors. While greater coordination between the Cities and County could be beneficial and should be pursued, it doesn't require diluting or virtually eliminating the current CoC. I welcome greater engagement and collaboration between local governments, which could include adopting regional affordable housing funding mechanisms and common and supportive incentive programs. The City of Sacramento often leads the region in innovative affordable housing strategies, but without meaningful contributions by other local governments we can not make the progress our disadvantaged communities deserve! If the City insists on changing the current system, Option 1 would do the least harm to the existing CoC and process. So I urge the City to adopt Option 1. And ensure that the JPA is used to push adoption of meaningful affordable housing strategies that provide permanent supportive housing for people experiencing homelessness, that keep people in their homes, and builds and preserves critical affordable housing at the scale needed for our communities.
When we as a society (city, county, community etc.) keep re-arranging bureaucratic structures that are responsible for “managing” a human crisis like homelessness, we are continuously taking away from the people in our city who need support the most. The people most impacted don’t have seats at the table and their voices are not heard. When you listen, they will tell you they want the stability of a home above all else. All 3 of these proposed options will take precious dollars and resources away from filling that need.
System change is something I typically support, but not with proposals like this that suck up dollars we could be using towards housing and supportive services. These proposed options support boards of elected officials with relatively no insight into the traumas of living unhoused in Sacramento today who will be charged with making critical decisions about providing essential and life-saving services. The solution to homelessness is more housing that is deeply affordable and that people on fixed incomes and/or at minimal income levels can afford alongside low-barrier services that allow folks the dignity of choice, autonomy and recognizes their humanity comes first.
Good evening,
I am a student at the McGeorge School of Law, and I support the first option for the JPA framework. Continuums of Care (CoCs) are the primary federal framework for addressing homelessness. They are collaborative networks composed of nonprofit providers, victim service organizations, faith-based groups, governments, businesses, advocates, public housing agencies, and mental health providers.
While CoCs must meet core federal requirements, they otherwise have flexibility in their size, leadership, membership, and structure. Research by Meghan Jarpe shows that CoCs with more diverse membership tend to achieve better outcomes, but also identifies a trade-off between advocacy and service coordination. Specifically, CoCs that focus heavily on political advocacy may experience larger service gaps.
A JPA structure helps address this trade-off by allowing elected officials to take a leading role in advocacy, while the CoC remains focused on its federally mandated service functions. For this reason, I support Option 1, in which the CoC Board remains separate. This approach preserves the CoC’s specialized role and reduces the risk to federal funding, while still strengthening regional advocacy through the JPA.
Study:
Meghan Jarpe et al., Understanding the Collaborative Planning Process in Homeless Services: Networking, Advocacy, and Local Government Support May Reduce Service Gaps Links to an external site., J Public Health Manag Pract. (2019).
We support creating a Joint Powers Authority to better coordinate policy and budgets across the City, County, and State.
That said, we want to make sure community voices are truly part of this process before the structure is finalized. It’s important that this new entity builds in real transparency and accountability from the start. We’re asking for clear, accessible ways for residents to participate in decisions, to share input before major actions are taken, and to raise concerns or challenge decisions when needed.
Simple things like open public meetings, timely notice, and clear channels for feedback will go a long way in building trust and making sure the communities affected are genuinely heard.
Re: Community voices must be heard before the JPA structure is locked in.
We appreciate the intent behind establishing a Joint Powers Authority (JPA) to improve policy alignment and budget coordination among the City, County, and State. At the same time, we respectfully request that this new entity include strong safeguards to ensure transparency, meaningful community input, and public accountability. Specifically, we ask that clear processes be established for community members to participate in decision-making, provide input before major actions are taken, and challenge or appeal decisions when concerns arise. Ensuring accessible public meetings, timely notice, and defined avenues for feedback and oversight will be critical to building trust and protecting the interests of the communities impacted by JPA actions.
Considerations: How will this transition impact current systems such as Coordinated Access, SHRA waitlists, and 311 related Department of Community Response protocols?
How will it impact clients currently on waitlists and in any affected program?
How will this meaningfully impact access to housing?
Who currently holds power and who will power be transferred to?
Who are the experts related to this issue?
Are unhoused or formerly unhoused people afforded decision making power or agency anywhere in this proposal?
Have they been consulted in any meaningful way in the development of this proposal?
Many Sacramentans who are concerned about the hardships experienced by most homeless people in Sacramento would be encouraged by a meaningful partnership between the city and county, as this would almost certainly improve the cost effectiveness of local efforts. Noting that the county has a Jail Population Reduction Plan, and that the city's incessant sweeping of homeless people who have nowhere else to go and often end up in jail for repeated visits after repeated sweeps which is just churn which increases the jail population and public expenses for no good reason, an organized and mutually agreeable partnership between local governments seems like a very good idea.
Good evening mayor, council, and community members,
I’m here to raise urgent concerns about the City of Sacramento’s proposed Title 17 zoning changes that would eliminate long-standing sensitive-use protections.
These changes would allow marijuana dispensaries and on-site consumption lounges to locate directly next to churches and places of worship, parks, drug and alcohol rehabilitation centers, youth-serving facilities, after-school programs, and residential neighborhoods.
Churches and places of worship serve as community anchors — providing youth programs, counseling, food distribution, and family support. Parks are where children play and families gather. These are exactly the types of environments Measure U is meant to protect and invest in.
From a Measure U perspective, this creates a serious contradiction. The City is investing millions into youth programs, violence prevention, homelessness services, and recovery support — while simultaneously considering land use policies that place cannabis businesses next to the very environments those programs are designed to protect.
We already require armed security at dispensaries because of the known risks — high cash volume, product value, and crime targeting. Expanding these uses without buffers increases clustering, increases exposure, and increases public safety costs, especially around churches, parks, and youth-centered spaces.
A Conditional Use Permit is not a safeguard — we have already seen cases in Sacramento where incompatible uses were approved despite strong community opposition.
I urge this Commission to formally review these Title 17 changes and provide a recommendation to City Council that preserves sensitive-use buffers — especially around churches and parks — and aligns land use policy with the City’s public health and safety investments.
Because if we fund these community spaces on one hand, and remove protections around them on the other — we are undermining our own work.
Please share this with somebody that you think has not been properly informed by the city.
Thank you.