The meeting may be observed in person or virtually via the citys AgendaLink page by selecting the “Watch” button for the meeting date. Written public comments may be submitted by email to comments@sanjacintoca.gov or by hard copy to the Office of the City Clerk, 595 S. San Jacinto Ave., San Jacinto, CA 92583, no later than 3:00 p.m. on the day of the meeting. The agenda states comments via text and social media will not be accepted, and that email comments identifying the agenda item number and “PUBLIC COMMENT” in the subject line will be distributed to the legislative body and retained with the official meeting record. The agenda also lists live telephone public comment via Microsoft Teams dial-in +1 (951) 465-7684, Conference ID 706 805 861#, with each caller limited to up to three minutes when recognized during Public Comment.

Closed session. Agenda item 1.2.1 is noticed as: PUBLIC EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION/APPOINTMENT/EMPLOYMENT. Title: City Manager. Public comments on closed-session items are noticed before closed session; a closed-session report is noticed after.

Special presentations. Agenda item 1.7 lists Employee of the Month Recognition for August — Tessa Murphy, and Nominator of the Month Recognition for August — Veronica Perez.

Consent calendar (selected staff recommendations as noticed). Staff recommends the council REVIEW and APPROVE Warrants and Disbursements for August 2026 in the amount of $9,789,216.25. For Tract Map No. 32955-1 — subdivision into 129 residential lots on the north side of Esplanade Street, about 1,300 feet west of Cawston Avenue — staff recommends approval of an Agreement for Completion of Public Improvements and Securities as approved by the city attorney; authorization for the City Manager to execute the agreement; approval of Tract Map 32955-1; and authorization for the mayor to sign the subdivision map.

The League of California Cities request that the City Council ADOPT Resolution No. 4149 supporting The Veterans and Affordable Housing Bond Act of 2026, which authorizes $11.25 billion in state general obligation bonds to fund several housing affordability programs, per the posted agenda recommendation.

Under the agenda item titled “Adding Section 33.075 of Title 8 of the San Jacinto Municipal Code to add SB 1383 Self-hauler Requirements,” staff recommends determining that the proposed project will not have a significant effect on the environment with incorporation of mitigation measures and adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program under CEQA, and introducing Ordinance 26-05 for first reading entitled: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN JACINTO, CALIFORNIA, ADDING SECTION 33.075 OF TITLE 8 OF THE SAN JACINTO MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING MANDATORY COMPLIANCE WITH SENATE BILL (SB) 1383 SHORT-LIVED CLIMATE POLLUTANT REDUCTION ACT. The agenda titles the item as adding SB 1383 self-hauler requirements.

Mayor Pro Tem Sanchez requests that the council AUTHORIZE the mayor to sign and transmit a letter to Governor Gavin Newsom requesting a veto of Senate Bill 1087 (Cabaldon). The staff report states SB 1087 proposes changes to California’s regional transportation planning and Sustainable Communities Strategy framework under Senate Bill 375; bill title language in packet materials includes transportation planning, sustainable communities strategies, and transportation funding programs.

Discussion. For Tract 31886 Landscape and Irrigation Improvements (SJ-545), staff recommends approving plans and specifications; awarding the construction contract to the lowest responsible bidder submitting a responsive bid, Conserve LandCare, for $986,944.25; allocating 8% of the total bid ($78,955.54) for administration, inspection, and testing; allocating 10% of the total bid ($98,694.43) for construction contingencies; and authorizing the Interim City Manager to execute the construction contract. The staff report states nine bids received Aug. 27, 2026, ranged from $986,944.25 to $1,953,649.88.

Also noticed: City Manager Update; Future Requests from City Council to City Manager; Adjournment. Documents related to open-session agenda items distributed within 72 hours of the meeting are available for public inspection at the public counter in the Administration Building of City Hall, 595 S. San Jacinto Ave., San Jacinto, CA 92583, per the agenda’s SB 343 notice.

Named votes and outcomes are not reported here; the meeting had not concluded when this advance was prepared.

AgendaLink: https://horizon.agendalink.app/engage-v2/sanjacintoca/agendas
Agenda PDF: https://s3.us-west-004.backblazeb2.com/agendalink-pdf/sanjacintoca/pdfs/agenda/6a8f6db1066d94050f960588/CityCouncilRegularMeeting_2026-09-15.pdf
Packet PDF: https://s3.us-west-004.backblazeb2.com/agendalink-pdf/sanjacintoca/pdfs/packets/6a8f6db1066d94050f960588/CityCouncilRegularMeeting_09-15-2026_packet_71d94f.pdf

The post San Jacinto council tonight: City Manager closed session, $9.79M August warrants, Tract 31886 landscaping award appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

The 17-year-old boy, whose identity has not been released, was a resident of Hesperia, though he had been involuntarily committed using a 5150 hold three days before the deadly encounter after he cut his wrists.

While being transported from a local hospital to a mental care facility, the teen “absconded” from medical care and showed up at the home of his two sisters, who are also in the foster care system but who live in a separate home in Victorville, Dicus said.

The sisters’ parents reported the teen as a trespasser, but he locked himself in a bathroom inside the home.

Armed with a knife, the boy threatened to harm himself, and given the small space, deputies were unable to use stun guns.

Instead, after half an hour of trying to deescalate the situation, they used pepper spray and attempted to physically take the boy into custody, with deputies yelling at the boy to “let go of the knife.” One deputy was sliced on the hand in the process.

During the fracas, one deputy opened fire, according to Dicas and confirmed by body camera video. The teen was struck and pronounced dead at a local hospital, the SBSD said in a press release.

Dicas mourned the “significant tragedy” that occurred while encouraging the public to “realize we can do better with” mental health crises.

The sheriff said not only is his department working to improve their responses to these issues, but he thinks Gov. Gavin Newsom and the recently passed Proposition 1, which allows the state to borrow up to $6.4 billion to build mental care facilities, are steps in the right direction.

“The overriding issue here that we need to be paying attention to as a society, and this is in lockstep with Proposition 1 and what the governor has stated, we have a mental health crisis on our hands, not just in this county, but in the entire state,” he said.

Dicas also referenced a couple similar incidents in which his deputies killed teens, saying that the 15-year-old autistic boy who charged deputies with a bladed garden tool in March was going through a similar mental health crisis before he was killed.

Dicus differentiated this recent shooting, however, from the shooting of 15-year-old Savannah Graziano, who was killed by deputies in 2022 as she tried to escape her father, who had kidnapped her and killed her mother.

He also referenced the recent video of a deputy seen punching and kneeing a person in the head after they had been restrained by deputies.

These incidents and the deputies’ actions during them are under investigation, and Dicus said due to “legal complexities,” he’s limited in what he can say about some of them. That said, administrative and criminal investigations are underway.

The post Inland Empire teen fatally shot by deputies during mental health crisis appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

There are many reasons for this outsize problem, including generations-old state laws that deinstitutionalized mentally ill people as well as high housing costs that have since priced tens of thousands out of shelter. But since the pandemic turned fentanyl abuse and tent camps into inescapable symptoms of a public health crisis, state policymakers have been under intense pressure to rethink California’s approach to behavioral health.

Last week, Californians voted on a key piece of that rethinking — a deeper focus on treatment and housing for homeless people with severe mental illnesses and substance use disorders. The ballot measure, called Proposition 1, was the product of months of work by Gov. Gavin Newsom to gather statewide support.

Polls suggested that Proposition 1 would be a slam-dunk. But so far, it is barely passing. Entering the week, the measure is hanging on with 50.5 percent of the vote and an estimated 2.5 million ballots left to count. So what happened?

Here’s what to know about Proposition 1 in California.

What is Proposition 1?

Placed on the ballot last year by state lawmakers and Mr. Newsom, Proposition 1 asks voters to dramatically expand treatment centers and supportive housing for people struggling with mental illness and addiction. The measure would authorize $6.38 billion in bonds to pay for facilities and housing and would amend the Mental Health Services Act, a 20-year-old state tax on millionaires, to shift about $140 million annually from counties to the state. The measure also would set aside about $1 billion to house homeless, mentally ill or addicted veterans.

What are the arguments for and against Proposition 1?

Proponents of Proposition 1 say it is key to restructuring California’s behavioral health system. One reason so many addicts and mentally ill people are on the street, they say, is that the state has an acute shortage of adult treatment beds. Proposition 1 would help house more than 11,000 sick people and help underwrite CARE Court, a new state program that would require people to enter treatment for certain psychotic disorders. The measure would explicitly extend a huge source of treatment dollars to homeless substance abusers. And, proponents say, Proposition 1 would lessen taxpayer spending on a population that is now largely being treated in jails.

Some civil libertarians fear Proposition 1heralds a return to the days when involuntary treatment was the norm for mentally ill people. But most opponents cite fiscal concerns. Critics say that California has already thrown tens of billions of dollars at homelessness only to see it worsen. Critics note that although Proposition 1 would not add new taxes, it would limit the amount the state could borrow for other issues and commit taxpayers to new debt amid high interest rates. Also, counties rely on the Mental Health Services Act to pay for programs that are not covered by California’s version of Medicaid or by other less flexible funding sources, and Proposition 1 would shift some of that money to the state.

Why is the vote so close?

Newsom administration officials say that their internal polling had always forecast a close vote. Turnout in California is usually lower in primaries than in general elections and is less heavily dominated by like-minded Democrats.

The bond measure is long and confusing and comes as the state is grappling with a budget shortfall. Mental health policy is a fraught issue in California, and proposed shifts tend to draw passionate pushback from civil liberties groups. And many voters are frustrated and fatigued by the sheer scale of California homelessness — and skeptical that any ballot measure could solve the problem.

But turnout was low, even for a primary. Without a close race for the presidential nomination in either party, only about a quarter of the state’s 22 million or so registered voters cast a ballot, according to the most recent statistics — the lowest participation rate in a presidential primary in at least 20 years.

The surprising proportion of Republicans also has affected the results. They make up less than a quarter of registered voters but were on track as of this weekend to make up nearly 30 percent of the turnout. Some Democratic analysts have pointed to the state’s Senate race, in which the front-runner, Adam Schiff, ran tens of millions of dollars on ads that elevated the profile of his preferred opponent, Steve Garvey, a political novice and Republican.

When will the final results be known?

Because California relies heavily on mail-in ballots, the vote count typically consumes weeks, but most observers expect a clearer picture within days.

Each of California’s more than 22 million registered voters was sent a ballot, but only about a third of them voted. According to the most recent state figures, about 2 million ballots have yet to be processed. Elections officials have until April 5.

But the sources of those remaining ballots hint at Proposition 1’s prospects. Campaign officials said late last week that though some large conservative precincts still needed to be counted, many more outstanding ballots were in major urban areas. Those parts of the state — Los Angeles and Alameda Counties, for instance — are heavily Democratic and more likely to vote “yes.”

The post California’s Ballot Measure on Mental Health Care Still Isn’t Decided. Why? appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.