The initiative was reported on May 21, 2026. It centers on Mather Airport in the Mather community and positions the former base as a potential trade and logistics hub rather than describing a completed airport conversion.

What the county is considering

The county’s effort would expand aircraft operations at Mather Airport. Officials described the proposed transformation as a “tradeport,” linking the airport site to increased aviation and logistics activity and to the county’s economic-development goals.

For people and businesses in Mather, the planning effort could eventually have practical implications for airport operations, freight traffic, land use and infrastructure demand. It could also affect the local employment outlook and the way nearby businesses interact with the airport. The approved reporting does not establish that any of those changes have occurred yet.

The project site is Mather Airport, which is located in Mather and occupies the former Air Force base identified in the reporting. Sacramento County is the governing entity tied to the airport and the broader economic-development effort.

No construction timeline or final scope yet

The development remains an ongoing planning effort. The approved sources do not show that construction has begun, and they do not establish a final project scope, financing plan or construction deadline.

They also do not provide a final budget or a confirmed number of new jobs, flights or cargo volume. Those distinctions matter: the county has begun pursuing the concept, but Mather Airport has not been established as a completed tradeport.

What comes next

Future county actions involving Mather-area facilities, land use or economic development would be recorded through the Sacramento County Board of Supervisors’ official agenda and actions system. That system is identified as the primary record path for Board actions affecting county facilities, land use and economic development.

As of the approved sources, no final approval, construction phase or project deadline has been established. Residents, airport users and local businesses will need additional county actions and planning details to determine the project’s eventual effects on traffic, freight, jobs and infrastructure.

Fair Oaks is an unincorporated Sacramento County community, so county zoning and planning proceedings apply to development there. The county’s June 2026 draft could change how some multifamily, neighborhood-scale housing, commercial-corridor and adaptive-reuse projects are reviewed if the amendments are later adopted.

What happened in Fair Oaks

The Fair Oaks Community Planning Advisory Council listed the Housing and Infill Zoning Code Amendments, project PLNP2025-00202, as a workshop during its July 1 meeting at Fair Oaks Library, 11601 Fair Oaks Blvd.

The agenda explicitly labeled the housing item a non-voting item. The workshop therefore did not approve, recommend or adopt a zoning change. Nothing in that July meeting immediately changed zoning in Fair Oaks.

What the county draft proposes

According to Sacramento County’s project materials, the proposed amendments would revise development and design standards for multifamily development countywide, including multifamily projects in commercial corridors and projects involving adaptive reuse.

The draft also proposes including neighborhood-scale multiunit buildings, such as triplexes and fourplexes, in single-family residential zoning districts. That proposal would not mean those housing types are currently permitted everywhere in Fair Oaks, nor would it remove all development standards.

The county also proposes eliminating use-permit requirements for multifamily development. That would change one part of the approval process, but it would not mean every multifamily project would be automatically approved. Building permits, design standards, environmental review, infrastructure requirements and other applicable regulations could still apply.

Separate proposed amendments would revise development and design standards for commercial and mixed-use projects in commercial corridors. For Fair Oaks, the practical effect would depend on the final code language, the zoning of individual properties and later project-level review.

What it could mean locally

If adopted, the amendments could make some housing proposals easier to process in areas where current rules limit development to single-family formats. Potential effects could include more options for property owners and developers, different review timelines for some projects, and changes in the types of housing that may be proposed near existing neighborhoods and commercial corridors.

Commercial corridors could also receive revised rules for housing, mixed-use development and the reuse of existing buildings. Those are potential effects, not guaranteed outcomes. Sacramento County has not adopted the draft, and the proposal does not provide an immediate entitlement for any particular Fair Oaks property.

The broader effort is part of Sacramento County’s 2026 infill work. County General Plan annual-report materials identify the Housing and Infill Zoning Code Amendments as a 2026 initiative expected to advance for Board of Supervisors consideration.

Next review dates

The next listed county Planning Commission meeting is scheduled for August 10, 2026, at 5:30 p.m., at 700 H Street in Sacramento. The county project page lists an estimated September 28, 2026, Planning Commission hearing and an estimated November 3, 2026, Board of Supervisors hearing.

The county identifies the September and November dates as estimates, and the schedule and draft language may change. The July Fair Oaks workshop was an early public-outreach step, not a final hearing or zoning decision.

Sources

• Fair Oaks Community Planning Advisory Council agenda, July 1, 2026
• Sacramento County Housing and Infill Zoning Code Amendment project page

The election will cover the directly elected mayor’s office and City Council seats in Districts 2 and 4. The latest City of Elk Grove filing-status record, updated July 31, lists five people who pulled nomination papers and identifies filing activity for those offices.

What is on the ballot

Elk Grove voters citywide will choose the mayor on Nov. 3. The council contests are district-based: only voters in Council District 2 will vote in that race, and only voters in District 4 will vote in the District 4 contest.

The city’s official election notice identifies the three offices as mayor, Council Member — District 2, and Council Member — District 4. The nomination period opened July 13 at 8:00 a.m. and closes Aug. 7 at 5:00 p.m.

What the July 31 filing record shows

The city record lists Janet “Lynn” Wheat and Bobbie Singh-Allen under the mayor’s office.

Rod Brewer and Peggy Parks are listed for Council District 2. Sergio Robles is listed for Council District 4.

Those names are a filing-status snapshot, not a final certified ballot. The city says the record shows who pulled nomination papers and what was filed, but does not necessarily reflect the election materials that will be produced by the Sacramento County Registrar of Voters.

The filing record alone does not establish whether a person has qualified, withdrawn or been certified for the ballot. The field can also change before the regular deadline and, in some circumstances, during the possible extension period.

Possible Aug. 12 extension

The field could remain unsettled after Friday if an eligible incumbent does not file by the regular deadline.

Under the city’s notice, if an incumbent’s nomination documents are not filed by 5:00 p.m. Aug. 7, a qualified person other than that incumbent may file for the affected office by 5:00 p.m. Wednesday, Aug. 12.

The extension is conditional and does not apply in every race. The city specifically says it is not applicable when there is no incumbent eligible to be elected.

What Elk Grove voters should watch next

The immediate deadline is 5:00 p.m. Friday, Aug. 7. After that deadline, voters should check the City of Elk Grove’s election information and filing updates for any applicable extension announcement and changes to the filing snapshot.

The city’s July 31 list is useful for tracking nomination-paper activity, but it should not be treated as the final candidate lineup. Final election materials and the printed ballot will reflect the completed election process handled by the city and Sacramento County election officials.

Sources

• City of Elk Grove public filing record, updated July 31, 2026

The agreements authorize up to $24,228,914 for multiple programs operated by Volunteers of America of Northern California and Northern Nevada. The initial term runs through June 30, 2027. The county may approve two additional one-year renewals, which could extend the agreements through June 30, 2029.

Mather is a census-designated place in Sacramento County, California. The county action changes the operating and funding framework for programs at Mather Community Campus; it does not represent the opening of a newly constructed facility.

What the agreements cover

The agreements cover the Mather single-adult emergency shelter, transitional housing for families, and the Laverne Adolfo Transitional Housing Program for former foster youth. County records identify Volunteers of America of Northern California and Northern Nevada as the operator for the covered programs.

County information about Mather Community Campus programs also describes transitional housing, case management, employment assistance, and related support services. These services are part of programs intended to help participants move toward stable housing and greater independence.

Funding for the single-adult shelter

For the Mather single-adult emergency shelter, the county budget includes $400,000 in Community Development Block Grant funding and $277,500 in Emergency Solutions Grant funding. It also includes an additional $1,142,582 in county General Fund support.

The shelter is budgeted to serve up to 150 people nightly, with an anticipated annual operating cost of $3,842,351. The 150-person figure is planned capacity, not a statement that 150 people are currently staying there each night.

The overall $24,228,914 figure is an authorized maximum for the agreements. It should not be read as money already spent or as a guaranteed final cost. Actual spending will depend on program operations, agreement terms, available funding, and any future county action.

What happens next

The July 1 start date keeps the covered programs operating under the new county-approved term for fiscal year 2026-27. The possible renewals are options, not confirmed extensions, so future county action will determine whether the agreements continue beyond June 30, 2027.

For Mather residents and Sacramento County taxpayers, the practical issues are the shelter’s planned capacity, the services provided at the campus, and the public funding directed to those programs. The agreements alone do not establish changes in homelessness totals, neighborhood crime, property values, or local taxes.

Sources

• Sacramento County Board of Supervisors action record
• Sacramento County FY 2026-27 Health and Human Services budget
• Sacramento County Mather Community Campus service information

What Sacramento County is proposing

The county’s June 2026 draft would revise development and design standards for multifamily projects countywide, in commercial corridors and for adaptive reuse of existing buildings.

The draft also would address neighborhood-scale multiunit buildings, including triplexes and fourplexes, in some single-family residential zoning districts. Other proposed changes cover commercial and mixed-use development in commercial corridors and would eliminate use-permit requirements for multifamily development.

Those provisions describe the scope of the draft, not a guarantee that every Fair Oaks parcel or neighborhood would qualify for a particular housing type. Eligibility would depend on the final rules, zoning designations and detailed development standards.

What happened July 1

The Fair Oaks CPAC reviewed the housing and infill proposal during its July 1 meeting. The item was listed as a “non-voting” workshop, so the meeting did not approve, reject or formally endorse the zoning amendments.

The county says CPACs are advisory bodies created to gather community input early in the planning process. Members may ask questions, express concerns and, when an item calls for it, vote on a recommendation. The county’s CPAC guidance states that CPACs do not make final decisions; their recommendations and public comments are provided to the formal hearing bodies.

What could change if the draft advances

If adopted after review, the amendments could affect the rules used when developers propose multifamily housing, small-scale multiunit buildings, commercial-corridor projects or adaptive reuse. Residents may want to watch how the county handles building form, design standards, use permits and the zoning areas covered.

The proposal could influence future redevelopment opportunities, but it does not itself approve construction or establish that rents, home prices, traffic or neighborhood conditions will change. The draft may be revised before the county takes formal action.

What happens next

The Sacramento County project page lists public outreach and community hearings from June through August. It also lists a Planning Commission workshop on August 10, an estimated Planning Commission hearing on September 28, and an estimated Board of Supervisors hearing on November 3, 2026.

The fall hearing dates should be treated as estimates until confirmed in posted agendas and staff materials. Residents who want to follow the proposal or submit comments should monitor the county’s housing and infill project page, the Sacramento County agenda portal and future Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors notices.

The key point for Fair Oaks residents is that the review process has begun, but the proposal remains under consideration. The draft, advisory input and final county approval are separate steps, and the next formal hearings will help determine whether the amendments advance, change or are rejected.

Sources

• Sacramento County housing and infill zoning project page
• Fair Oaks CPAC July 1, 2026 meeting agenda

Regular gas: another step higher

Regular gasoline climbed from $6.098 yesterday to $6.114 today. It was $5.938 a week ago, $5.806 a month ago and $4.880 a year ago. For commuters, school drop-offs and weekend errands, that keeps fill-ups expensive and leaves little room for the price at the pump to ease.

Diesel: a small daily dip, but still very high

Diesel edged down from $7.543 yesterday to $7.535 today. Even with that daily dip, it is above last week’s $7.495 and far above the $5.043 benchmark from a year ago. That matters for contractors, delivery drivers, landscapers, restaurants and other small businesses that burn through diesel quickly.

How Mather compares with California and the U.S.

Sacramento’s regular-gas benchmark is about 5 cents below California’s $6.165 average, but roughly $1.56 above the U.S. average of $4.558. Diesel is about 4 cents above California’s $7.493 average and about $1.86 above the national average of $5.674.

EIA’s weekly fuel update shows West Coast prices remain among the country’s highest, which matches the gap local drivers are seeing at the pump. For households and businesses in and around Mather, that means transportation costs are still a real budgeting item, especially for longer commutes and daily deliveries.

If you’re filling up around Mather or across Sacramento County, share the highest and lowest prices you’re seeing locally.

Sources

• AAA California Fuel Prices
• U.S. Census Bureau profile: Mather CDP, California
• EIA Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update

That dispute is now centered on SB 802, a bill by state Sen. Angelique Ashby that would overhaul the Sacramento Housing and Redevelopment Agency and give a renamed regional body a much larger role in housing and homelessness policy. In April 13 interviews with CapRadio, Ashby argued Sacramento’s current setup is too fragmented for residents to follow and too diffuse for elected officials to manage. Sacramento County Supervisor Patrick Kennedy argued the bill would add bureaucracy, reduce local control and risk disrupting work already underway.

What Sacramento uses now

Sacramento is not starting from zero. The City of Sacramento says the region already operates under a Regionally Coordinated Homelessness Action Plan tied to Homeless Housing, Assistance and Prevention funding. That framework has been approved by the city, Sacramento County and the Sacramento Continuum of Care.

In other words, there is already a city-county-regional system in place. SB 802 is not about creating coordination from scratch. It is about whether Sacramento should move from a collaborative framework to a more centralized governing agency with broader authority.

What SB 802 would change

Under the current bill text, the joint powers authority now operating as the Sacramento Housing and Redevelopment Agency would be restructured, expanded and renamed the Sacramento Area Housing and Homelessness Agency. The bill says the participating jurisdictions would include Sacramento County and each qualified local agency, defined as cities in the county with at least 50,000 residents. The bill specifically lists Sacramento, Elk Grove, Citrus Heights, Folsom and Rancho Cordova.

The proposed agency would do more than coordinate meetings. It would be assigned regional duties including developing and preserving affordable housing, coordinating homelessness prevention and response services, serving as the HUD-designated Continuum of Care, applying for and administering housing and homelessness funding, and managing a countywide strategic plan.

The bill also lays out an initial 11-member governing board: three appointees from the Sacramento City Council, three from the Sacramento County Board of Supervisors, two from Elk Grove, and one each from Citrus Heights, Folsom and Rancho Cordova. The text says cities and the county would transfer delegated powers and duties to that board.

Ashby’s case for centralizing authority

Ashby told CapRadio that Sacramento residents currently face a maze of overlapping boards and inconsistent cooperation. Her argument is that the region has spent years talking about collaboration without creating one place where residents can see who is responsible, how decisions are made and whether progress is happening.

That is the core appeal of SB 802 for supporters: clearer accountability, one regional body, and fewer excuses for agencies to pass responsibility back and forth.

Why the county is pushing back

Sacramento County is making a different case. Kennedy told CapRadio the bill would create another layer of government without making the system more efficient. The county’s formal opposition letter goes further, arguing that the proposal raises legal questions about whether the state can compel changes to a joint powers authority and whether the new structure would fit federal Continuum of Care rules.

The county also warns that the change could interfere with funding and contracts already in motion. In its letter, the Board of Supervisors said about $40 million in active HHAP contracts and services could face disruption if programs are transferred midstream. The letter also says active agreements cannot simply be reassigned without consent from all parties. Those are county claims, not settled findings, but they show why this is more than a symbolic governance debate.

Why this matters to residents

For Sacramento residents, the practical question is who controls homelessness strategy, where housing and homelessness dollars flow, and whether a more centralized model would make services easier to understand or harder to deliver during a transition.

For service providers and local governments, the stakes are just as concrete: who applies for funding, who oversees contracts, who sets regional priorities, and how much flexibility cities and the county keep over housing and homeless programs.

What to watch next

According to the California Legislature, SB 802 remains an active bill. It was last amended on January 26, 2026, and is now in the Assembly Housing and Community Development Committee.

The next local question is not just whether the Assembly advances the bill. It is whether Sacramento leaders can present a credible alternative governance model of their own, or whether this fight keeps moving from local meeting rooms to the Capitol.

Sources

• CapRadio interview with Sen. Angelique Ashby
• CapRadio interview with Supervisor Patrick Kennedy
• California Legislature bill text for SB 802
• California Legislature bill status for SB 802
• Sacramento County Board of Supervisors opposition letter on SB 802
• City of Sacramento Regionally Coordinated Homelessness Action Plan page
• California Legislature bill search for SB 802
• Sacramento County legislative position letters
• City of Sacramento HHAP partnership page
• Legadv

The consent-calendar item does three things at once: authorizes revenue agreements with various health plans, creates pooled spending authority for those dollars and later funding as it becomes available, and expands the contract with the nonprofit administrator that runs the back end of the program.

For Sacramento residents following homelessness policy, the practical point is this: county officials are trying to build a larger housing-placement system that uses health-care-linked money, not just traditional homelessness grants, to help eligible people get indoors and stay housed.

What the Flexible Housing Pool does

According to Sacramento County’s 2025 program rollout, the Flexible Housing Pool is a countywide system for eligible Medi-Cal members who are experiencing homelessness or are at risk of it. In plain English, it is meant to combine the pieces that often sit in separate programs: short-term rent help, housing deposits, landlord incentives, housing navigation, tenancy support, and tracking across county departments and care partners.

The county said the first-year priority is people in Behavioral Health Bridge Housing who need housing in order to leave shelter. Over time, the county said it wants the pool to braid in additional funding streams, including managed care plan contributions and CalAIM-related housing benefits.

It is not a general program for every unhoused resident in Sacramento County. Eligibility is tied to Medi-Cal-related rules and county program design, and this board item is about a county system, not a city homelessness program.

Why the Brilliant Corners contract matters

Brilliant Corners is not just another vendor in this setup. Sacramento County identified it as the recommended administrator in its procurement documents and later said the nonprofit would act as the third-party administrator for the pool. The organization is tasked with administering rental subsidies and housing deposits, managing landlord risk programs, coordinating navigation and tenancy supports, and handling the financial and reporting systems behind the program.

That is why the proposed contract increase matters operationally. If more managed care dollars start flowing in, the county needs an administrator with enough contract capacity to process referrals, pay subsidies, manage landlord relationships, and report outcomes across multiple funding sources.

Why health-care money is central

The county’s approach reflects a broader California shift under CalAIM, which links some housing supports to health care for eligible Medi-Cal members. A state Department of Health Care Services update described flexible housing subsidy pools as a way for counties and partner agencies to coordinate rental assistance and other housing supports for people experiencing or at risk of homelessness.

That matters in Sacramento because local homelessness programs are under continuing budget pressure. CapRadio reported in January that county officials were warning about the difficulty of sustaining homelessness services as state funding becomes less certain. Pulling managed care plan revenue into housing operations gives Sacramento County another funding channel, though it is targeted and comes with eligibility rules.

What is still unknown

Several key details are not settled yet. The April 7 item asks the board for authority; it does not mean the full $10 million has already arrived. The agenda language also does not say how much each managed care plan will contribute, how quickly the money would be available, or how fast placements would expand after approval.

So the next things to watch are whether supervisors approve the item, whether revenue agreements with health plans are finalized, and whether the county starts reporting more placements or broader capacity through the Flexible Housing Pool later this year.

Sources

• Sacramento County Board of Supervisors agenda for April 7, 2026
• Sacramento County announcement on the Flexible Housing Pool
• Flexible Housing Pool administrator recommendation
• California DHCS flexible housing pools guidance
• CapRadio on Sacramento funding pressure for homelessness and housing services
• Sacramento County flexible housing pool announcement