5PM City Council (Closed Session Begins @ 3:30 p.m.) [Updated 01/04/2022 @ 11:10 a.m.]
Meeting Time: 01-04-22 17:00
eComments Report
Meetings Meeting
Time
Agenda
Items
Comments Support Oppose Neutral
5PM City Council (Closed Session Begins
@ 3:30 p.m.) [Updated 01/04/2022 @
11:10 a.m.]
01-04-22
17:00
38 126 4 116 1
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 @ 3:30 p.m.) [Updated 01/04/2022 @ 11:10 a.m.] 01-04-22 17:00
Agenda Name Comments Support Oppose Neutral
10. Agreements: Hope Cooperative Response and Respite Services (Two-Thirds Vote Required) File ID: 2021-01428
3 0 2 1
14. Grant: Fiscal Y ear 2021 Office of Community Oriented Policing Services Hiring Program File ID: 2021-01477
7 0 7 0
20. Rehearing-Third Party Appeal: Curtis Park Village Fuel Center (Noticed 11/24/2021 & 12/23/2021) File ID: 2021-01331
116 4 107 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 10. Agreements: Hope Cooperative Response and Respite Services (Two-Thirds Vote Required) File ID: 2021-01428
Overall Sentiment
Jeff Raimundo
Location:
Submitted At: 10:47pm 01-03-22
As a board member and former administrator of one of Sacramento's leading homeless services organizations for 13 years, I am an ardent supporter of care services for unsheltered folks. Nobody should be forced to live on the street, suffering harsh weather, hunger, lack of treatment for serious health issues and other failures of society's responsibility to care for our most vulnerable. In this narrow case, however, I believe this contract could lead to location of a respite and care center for people with serious substance abuse and behavioral issues inappropriately next door to the Children's Receiving Home, a respite and care center for at-risk children who have suffered their own harm through no fault of their own -- often victims themselves of parents or guardians with substance abuse and behavioral issues. So I must oppose this proposal until the city assures that the center will not pose a threat to those kids, at which time I will loudly cheer the city's effort. -- Jeff Raimundo Rebecca LaVally
Location:
Submitted At: 9:46pm 01-03-22
As VP of the Board of the Children's Receiving Home, a nonprofit that cares for abused, neglected and traumatized foster children and teens, and other kids with severe mental health issues, we appreciate the Council's postponement of Consent Item 10 at your Dec. 14 meeting, at the request of our Board president, to give us time to review its plan for a respite center for unsheltered persons next door to CRH. This Jan. 4 version of the proposed contract now says the respite center location "will be determined by the City." Our Board posed a number of safety/security questions to the city regarding last month's version of the contract for a respite center on Auburn Boulevard, adjacent to CRH. Unfortunately, our questions haven't been satisfactorily answered. For instance, it's unclear where persons discharged for being threatening, under the center's rules, would go. Thus, while we support care centers for the unsheltered, we oppose putting one next to CRH, given concerns for our kids.
A.G. Block
Location:
Submitted At: 11:10am 01-03-22
Although I support the concept of a respite center, I currently oppose this contract because one of the sites under consideration is the former Science Center on Auburn Blvd. The nonprofit Children's Receiving Home is next door to this site and cares for abused, neglected and traumatized foster youth and others with severe mental issues.
CRH has submitted numerous questions to the city regarding daily operation of the Center and how it might impact CRH, and I am concerned that the city has not adequately addressed those concerns, especially regarding the security and safety of children under CRH care. According to the city's plan, the Center will serve people with behavioral, alcohol and drug issues, without explaining how the contractor will manage this population so as to protect the CRH facility and its children. Until the city can address those issues or agree not to locate at the Auburn site, I oppose the contract. Respectfully, A.G. Block, former member of the CRH board.
Agenda Item: eComments for 14. Grant: Fiscal Year 2021 Office of Community Oriented Policing Services Hiring Program File ID: 2021-01477
Overall Sentiment
Meg White
Location:
Submitted At: 8:49pm 01-03-22
As a Black woman and business owner in Sacramento I strongly oppose this agenda item. My personal experience has been that the Sacramento Police Department does possess the skills necessary to keep our most vulnerable neighborhoods safe. The statistics show that over policing only leads to high recidivism rates, and more broken families. What we need are community programs that offer solutions for people who turn to crime as a means of survival. Not more gun toting under trainer police officers who create more trauma in our communities. This program will only result in tax payers have to foot the bill for more ineffective, and often racist classist, policing - to the tune of 8 million more dollars over the next 4 years.
Courtney Poole
Location:
Submitted At: 8:45pm 01-03-22
Please oppose accepting this $1.875 million grant. Community safety does not increase with an increase of officers. 15 more police officers funded by this grant also means a significant amount of money is required to be contributed by the city for program implementation and retention. The community wants Care not Cops. This decision means the city would be divesting funding that could be invested in community programs that are trusted and effective in preventing crime. Investing in a racist, harmful institution is not a smart use of our city dollars. As Sac PD's budget continues to increase each year (currently $168 million), our city is no safer. As a social worker and elementary school mental health professional, I see first-hand the effectiveness of early intervention, care, and community support versus police response. Let's fund community based orgs that are already doing the work in crime prevention instead of accepting this grant. VOTE NO ON AGENDA ITEM #14.
Rowen Rayneharte
Location:
Submitted At: 5:16pm 01-03-22
I feel like this money could be better offered to people and organizations within Sacramento City who support community and look to prevent crime rather than just police it. Please look into the non profits and organizations in your area who are doing community work and fund them! Go visit the nonprofits/community organizations in your district and ask them what support they need from you. The people will show you and tell you what they need a lot better than the police will. Prioritize prevention over policing! Do not prioritize funding the police over schools and community resources. The police have enough funds. Schools and community services are wildly underfunded and overworked.
Adrianna Lucero
Location:
Submitted At: 5:02pm 01-03-22
I am frustrated to see Sacramento taking more money to hire more police officers instead of putting money toward prevention. Police do not prevent crime - addressing the communities' basic needs like poverty, mental health care, and supporting youth is what prevents crime. Sac PD is ineffective after funding already being at an all time high. It is beyond disappointing to see City Council not seem to make substantial efforts toward the recommendations of the Community Police Review Commission, and instead continue to throw our tax dollars at policing instead of meaningful and effective policies to support communities.
Jack Reichel
Location:
Submitted At: 2:47pm 01-03-22
As a mental health worker I am absolutely upset to hear that a Federal Grant of 2 million dollars is going towards Sac Pd to hire 15 new officers. Regardless of the community outrage for for mental health funding and more community based programs and preventative approaches to gun violence and crime in general, this city has kept giving our police more and more. If ANYBODY should be getting 2 million dollars to fight gun violence in impacted communities, it should be THOSE COMMUNITIES. Funding youth and mental health programs is what those communities want and need. This is completely unacceptable and the opposite of what will help. We all know that when this grant is up, those officers will then be getting paid once again with my tax dollars and the dollars of those being beaten and murdered by Sac PD. Preventative approaches start with communities and not "community policing". That is just a buzz word to make people feel better. Use the money for something that will help, not harm
Asha Kreiling
Location:
Submitted At: 2:20pm 01-03-22
What has the City Council done in terms of implementing the City's Community Police Review Commission's recommendations of 2021? For that matter, how about the Commission's recommendations from 2020, 2019, or 2018? What is SacPD doing to ensure they don't murder another human being with their hands up holding cell phones not guns? What is SacPD doing to ensure officers value human life enough to render emergency medical care to citizens they or others have shot or physically injured? What is SacPD doing to ensure their Chief and officers understand and protect the constitutional and civil rights of those who peacefully demonstrate and protest against SacPD's misconduct? What is SacPD doing to eradicate officers' illegal use of force and racial profiling? How many other Alexa Palubickis, Justin Shepards, Terrance Mercadals, and Jared Robinets serve on what you call "one of the best police departments in the nation"? Dr. Corrine McIntosh Sako
Location:
Submitted At: 6:10pm 01-02-22
As a licensed psychologist in independent practice and a community mental health advocate, I implore you to oppose adopting this item. Although a grant for almost $2million from the U.S. Department of Justice's Office of Community Oriented Policing Services may sound good on the surface, the fact is that accepting this grant allows for the addition of 15 Full-Time Equivalent (FTE) police officer positions over a three-year grant period and requires the City to retain and fund these positions for a minimum of one additional year "to increase community policing capacity and crime prevention efforts" in the area of "violent crime/gun violence." Sac PD is already ineffective at targeting this area and adding more officers to an already ineffective solution will yield the same results. Instead, provide permanent direct funding to community-based organizations that serve communities victimized by gun violence, such as Voices of the Y outh, Brother 2 Brother, Black Child Legacy Campaign, etc Agenda Item: eComments for 20. Rehearing-Third Party Appeal: Curtis Park Village Fuel Center (Noticed 11/24/2021 & 12/23/2021) File ID: 2021-01331
Overall Sentiment
Ann Nakamura
Location:
Submitted At: 8:37am 01-04-22
The proposed station will increase traffic in residential sections of 24th Street, where attempts to slow traffic are currently failing. Less than a mile from the proposed site, a speeding car jumped the roundabout, crashing through a home’s metal fence. That accident could easily have been fatal. Further, 24th has no traffic stops for about a mile of residential straightaway, adjacent to new family homes. Placing a station without any measures to improve safety is reckless.
Jess Cabrera
Location:
Submitted At: 8:04am 01-04-22
We support the station most of us in the area have to drive to work as there are no other means to take us there, we need a safe area we can fuel up and getting a discount with cost of gas is up Jill Correll
Location:
Submitted At: 6:04am 01-04-22
I oppose the gas station being built in Crocker village.
Katherine Nzive
Location:
Submitted At: 11:14pm 01-03-22
I am a resident of North City Farms and strongly oppose the proposed fuel center at Crocker Village, which would be located less than 900 feet from my home (as-a-crow-flies). Many City Farms residents, including teens and families with young children, frequently walk or bike to Crocker Village and go over the pedestrian bridge to the RT station, as well as to businesses just south of Crocker Village on W. Pacific Ave. Increased car traffic from the proposed gas station would make crossing under Sutterville Road via the W. Pacific Bypass/Buchannan Street or crossing Sutterville at-grade at Bicycle Alley, even more perilous than it already is for pedestrians and bicyclists.
The City should be pursuing improvements that make it easier for residents of City Farms and other nearby neighborhoods to access public transit, shops, and restaurants without getting into cars. Authorizing a gas station at the proposed site would move things in the opposite direction.
Lara Johnson
Location:
Submitted At: 10:41pm 01-03-22
I oppose a gas station at Crocker Village and implore City Council to require Petrovich Development Company to adhere to its original Village plans, which did NOT include a suburban style Costco-sized mega fueling station in this transit-oriented urban infill project. I congratulate Safeway for joining our community at Crocker Village without a gas station, note its bustling success, and recall the developer threatening everything from Oak Park job losses to installation of a rendering plant when categorically insisting in 2015 that Safeway would not locate without a gas station. Do not reward developer’s bait-and-switch tactics or community-dividing lies. Infrastructure put in place now will impact residents of our neighborhoods for decades to come. Please keep Crocker Village’s future open for green, sustainable development, transit-oriented funding opportunities, and forward-looking businesses whose interests align with the people who live here. Do not approve this CUP .
Patrick Van Buren
Location:
Submitted At: 10:20pm 01-03-22
I live on 24th Street in Curtis Park, and I strongly oppose the fuel center in Crocker Village for the following reasons:
1) There's currently more than an adequate number of gas stations in the area. I believe that number is around
22...
2) Infill growth should strengthen existing neighborhoods, not weaken them. 3) Traffic is already unbearable on Suttervile and 24th Street. The addition of a fuel center does nothing to mitigate this undesirable situation and will only worsen the problem. 4) A fuel center is inconsistent with the City's commitment to reducing vehicle miles traveled and curbing the negative impacts of climate change.
5) Adding a fuel center in this area serves absolutely no public good given the vast number of existing gas stations.
6) Approving a fuel center is contrary to the City's commitment of promoting transit and pedestrian-oriented infill projects.
Kate Van Buren
Location:
Submitted At: 9:52pm 01-03-22
Please vote no on the CUP to build a fuel station in my neighborhood. We are already acclimating to the increased density and welcome our neighbors in Crocker Village. The last thing we need is a toxic business summoning more thirsty vehicles into an already thriving commercial development. It is clearly one man’s greed trying to overturn the protective and thoughtful rejection of the last use permit by the city council. Y ou already know the technical reasons we don’t need a fuel center in Curtis Park - there are already 22 in a small radius.
The vision for this development was to encourage bicycles, walking and family fun activities. Adding a 16 nozzle (or any size) fuel center would be a terrible mistake not easily fixed. We must be stewards of our environment and not contribute to climate change. We owe it to the generations that come after us. Please vote no on this appeal.
Marily Schmucki
Location:
Submitted At: 9:19pm 01-03-22
I live in the southeast corner of Curtis Park and am strongly opposed to a fuel center in Crocker Village. The Sutterville Rd./Franklin Blvd. intersection has become gridlocked, as more traffic accumulates due to City College's increasing size, more homes in the Village, and the popularity of the local shopping center. The neighborhood near this intersection, where an elementary school is located and a lot of children play in the streets, is experiencing a huge increase in speeding cars cutting off the intersection, making it increasingly dangerous, noisy, and polluted. Adding a large fuel center will only increase the traffic and gridlock.
The gas station is proposed in a difficultly accessed corner of an already busy local center. More cars would overwhelm the center, the neighborhood's narrow streets, and its tight corners.
There is simply no need for another gas station, especially now that aggressive goals for reducing greenhouse gases have been adopted by the Council.
Maggie Armstrong
Location:
Submitted At: 9:07pm 01-03-22
My family urges you to hear and represent the community in opposing the gas station in Crocker Village. On behalf of the seniors at the nearby apartments, my mother among them, we also express our vehement opposition.
Thomas Gohring
Location:
Submitted At: 8:54pm 01-03-22
Dear Mayor and Members of the Council, I am opposed to the proposed project. The magnitude of gas pumps are not appropriate for a residential neighborhood. Furthermore, the City should be supporting electric charging stations, not fossil fuel distribution. Thank you, Tom Gohring/Sacramento Resident Kathleen Ave
Location:
Submitted At: 8:38pm 01-03-22
Very disappointing to see the staff report and recommendation rolled forward from 2015 while the world we live in and our understanding of it have changed significantly. The City has declared a Climate Emergency and convened a broad-based Mayors Commission effort to address it - new fossil infrastructure is inconsistent with appropriate climate policy that demands urgent progress. The developer's bad faith, 11th hour departure from a plan billed as "transit oriented" was appalling then and even more so now when it will only dig us into a deeper hole and exacerbate climate injustice. Any remaining space should be used for high density affordable housing for very low income residents. The City needs to stop supporting "business as usual" and reject projects that are not socially and environmentally regenerative (see www.living-future.org). PLEASE ALSO SEE COMMENTS
OPPOSING THIS PROJECT THAT WERE SUBMITTED WHEN THE ITEM WAS MISTAKENL Y LISTED AS A HEARING ON 12/7/21.
Mary Helen Adams
Location:
Submitted At: 8:05pm 01-03-22
I am strongly opposed to building the Curtis Park Village Fuel station. We have a sufficient number of fuel stations surrounding our area. Additionally, we should be moving in an environmentally more friendly direction.
Sheila Joy Lowin
Location:
Submitted At: 7:09pm 01-03-22
Hello,
My name is Sheila Joy Lowin and I live here in Curtis Park. I strongly oppose the fuel center in Crocker Village.
Our neighborhood as well as surrounding neighborhoods have plenty of options as it is to get fuel. This is not needed and I believe it would have a negative impact on the community as a whole. Thank you for your consideration.
Regards,
Sheila Joy Lowin
~from Curtis Way
Travis Lowin
Location:
Submitted At: 7:08pm 01-03-22
My name is Travis Lowin and I live here on Curtis Way in Curtis Park. I firmly oppose the fuel center in Crocker Village. Our neighborhood, as well as Crocker Village, has plenty of options as it is to get fuel. This is not needed and I believe if built it would have a negative impact on the community as a whole. Thank you for your consideration.
Best,
Travis Lowin
Kay Moore
Location:
Submitted At: 6:34pm 01-03-22
24th St says no
Diann Velaga
Location:
Submitted At: 5:41pm 01-03-22
VEHEMENTL Y OPPOSE A FUEL STATION @ THIS LOCATION…..!!!!! This neighborhood Has at Least 1Dozen gas stations within a mile or less…..!!!
Dennis Sorge
Location:
Submitted At: 4:54pm 01-03-22
As residents living on 24th Street, we have already taken the brunt of the increased cut-through traffic from the Crocker Village development. The increase was to be expected, but the excessive speeds and semi-tractor trailers were not. We currently have an open ticket with the City of Sacramento to re-evaluate the traffic slowing measures. We hope they will increase the number of speed lumps/bumps/humps. Adding a large gas station in our residential neighborhood would further increase the traffic on 24th, a residential street. We have lived in Curtis Park for over 20 years and have never, at any time of day, had to wait for an open pump at any of the existing gas stations.
Charles McGaith
Location:
Submitted At: 4:52pm 01-03-22
My name is Charles McGaith, &, as a Donner Way resident, I want to express my strong opposition to the application for approval for a Crocker Village fuel center. I am concerned about the pollution it may cause as well as additional traffic congestion adversely affecting a residential neighborhood. Please vote “no” on this proposal.
Wendy Saunders
Location:
Submitted At: 4:35pm 01-03-22
1) The Council has been responsible in adopting aggressive goals for greenhouse gas reduction. Approving a new massive fuel center that increases traffic and harms air quality flies in the face of the Council's adopted goals; 2) There are 23 gas stations within a 2 mile radius of the proposed location-It is not needed; 3) The development was approved in 2010 along with a detailed PUD with transit and pedestrian qualities; it was funded $16M transit-related public funds. The developer never mentioned the possibility of a gas station in any of the many public meetings or documents. The fuel center, added years later, is in total conflict with the well- documented intent of the development; 4) The Curtis Park neighborhood is unified in opposition to this proposed blemish on one of the most transit-friendly, walkable and green neighborhoods in Sacramento. Please respect the neighborhood.
Karen Hill
Location:
Submitted At: 4:31pm 01-03-22
There can be no possible excuse for approving this fuel station:
We have plenty of gas stations in the vicinity. I have never once had to wait to put gas in a car.
The station is too massive to be inside a neighborhood of this size. It will dominate the environment.
The developed land was promised to be geared to environmentally sound modes of transportation.
California should be moving to electric cars.
Going forward: Any development within the City of Sacramento needs to be done in a responsible way. The council needs to remember that whatever decisions they make will leave a long lasting effect on the city and its residents. Whatever reasons the developer has in pushing for this gas station, whether monetary or other, should not factor in what is best for our city and neighborhoods.
Kate Williams
Location:
Submitted At: 4:22pm 01-03-22
A large gas station is not needed and is not compatible with the Crocker village area. We have an electric car and if anything we need to add charge stations rather than gas stations. Please vote no.
Kate Williams
Stacey Armstrong
Location:
Submitted At: 3:56pm 01-03-22
Inadequate infrastructure for a 16 pump gas station. Contradicts initial plan for a transit and pedestrian friendly development. Too close to houses. There are enough stations nearby. Green California. brenda fotos
Location:
Submitted At: 3:41pm 01-03-22
I'm opposed to the council approving the 16-pump fuel center in Crocker Village. This old report needs to be updated. There are 3 gas stations within 2 min of my house now. 2 gas stations within 7 mins. Approving this fuel center would be against any climate change plan the city is trying to achieve. we don't need it. We never did need it. Thank you Brenda and Cary Fotos, Curtis Park
Patti Yoder
Location:
Submitted At: 3:39pm 01-03-22
Live on 4th Ave in Curtis park. Do not see any need for a large gas station in Curtis Park Village and oppose the construction. Seems this would not even be a very lucrative location considering that it is not on a main road and it will not be particularly visible. Of course to anyone but those of us that live in this neighborhood. We have plenty of gas options
Signed Patti Y oder.
Paulette Natura-Johnson
Location:
Submitted At: 3:32pm 01-03-22
I vehemently oppose the proposed gas station in Crocker Village. I moved to Curtis Park in 1993 and raised my family in this pedestrian neighborhood. We do not use gas power landscape equipment due to our environmental concerns. We must halt the environmental encroachment where ever we can for our future generations. I encourage you to vote 'No' on the new gas station.
Signed: Paulette Natura/Johnson
Jonathan Ambrose
Location:
Submitted At: 3:09pm 01-03-22
We have plenty of gas stations in the area, another one is not necessary. In light of the adverse impacts due to climate change I encourage the City to take a lead roll in promoting new technologies such as recharging stations - not old technologies that will further exacerbate our ever warming climate. Thank you for your consideration of my comment.
Bruce Pierini
Location:
Submitted At: 2:11pm 01-03-22
I am in opposition to a major regional fuel center at the Safeway in Crocker Village. The reasons should be obvious: We have 22 gas stations within a 2 mile radius of the site, super-sized fuel center should only be along major thoroughfares, not shoehorned into a small lot, the traffic to Crocker Village and Curtis Park, at a minimum, will increase significantly as people drive to the Fuel Center for their Safeway rewards’ savings All the while Raley's provides electric charge stations at their Freeport store. No, no, no to this vanity project at Safeway, Crocker Village.
Michael Paparian
Location:
Submitted At: 1:25pm 01-03-22
Dear Council Members,
I strongly opposed the proposed gas station at the Safeway in Crocker Village/Curtis Park. Not only is this fueling station too close to a residential neighborhood, pursuing additional fueling stations is inconsistent with the climate change solutions the city and state are pursuing. Raley's on Freeport Blvd. did the right thing by placing modern electric vehicle charging stations at their new store. Safeway should be encouraged to do the same thing.
Please vote no on the Safeway fueling proposal.
Michael Paparian, Fifth Avenue
Kate Marusina
Location:
Submitted At: 1:22pm 01-03-22
I oppose the gas station in Curtis Park Village
Bill Westerfield
Location:
Submitted At: 1:02pm 01-03-22
I am opposed to a fuel center in Crocker Village! The LAST thing our neighborhood needs or wants is another gas station.
-Wm. Westerfield, 9th Avenue
Margaret Fraser
Location:
Submitted At: 12:56pm 01-03-22
I live on Donner Way and oppose approval to construct a Safeway fuel center in the Crocker Village shopping center. Such fuel centers do not belong in close proximity to residential neighborhoods, nor is another one needed when there are already more than 20 gas stations less than 2 miles away from its proposed location. A better idea would be to install electric vehicle chargers on the premises. I respectfully request your “No” vote on the proposal. Thank you, Margaret Fraser
Melissa Cirone
Location:
Submitted At: 12:50pm 01-03-22
The proposed Fuel Center would be a terrible addition to the neighborhood, increase traffic in an already overwhelmed neighborhood without easy access and be bad for everyone who lives in this community. There are enough gas stations for everyone and crowding a new one in an impacted area is not good. Students ride their bikes to schools close by and this increases the likelihood of accidents. I strongly oppose this center.
Sue Staats
Location:
Submitted At: 12:47pm 01-03-22
I oppose the proposed fuel center at the Crocker Village Safeway site. Please vote no on this.
Sue Staats
Alex Crawford
Location:
Submitted At: 12:45pm 01-03-22
I live on Coleman Way in Curtis Park and I oppose this gas station project. It is unnecessary for our community and will negatively impact our quality of life in Curtis Park.
Leah Gutierrez
Location:
Submitted At: 12:37pm 01-03-22
As a resident of the area, I oppose the building of a sixteen pump fuel center in Crocker Village. Let me begin my addressing the traffic. There has been a significant increase in traffic since the residential and commercial development. Adding a gas station to the area will create even more traffic, resulting in some major traffic congestion on the already busy Sutterville road and 24th street. This creates safety concerns for pedestrians, bicyclists, and emergency vehicles getting to their destination. Lastly, there are 23 gas stations within a two mile radius of the site. Building another gas station is bad for the environment and contradicts the Council’s adoption of aggressive goals for reducing greenhouse gases. Please represent us by putting our community’s safety, and the betterment of our environment first. I ask that the Council to do what is right by opposing the sixteen pump fuel center in Crocker Village.
Jim Adams
Location:
Submitted At: 11:33am 01-03-22
If we are ever going to leave a sustainable environment for our children, we cannot keep implementing projects that sustain and encourage the use of gasoline powered vehicles. The overriding motivation for the fuel center request, I would argue, is profit driven; I suspect, however, both Safeway and the Petrovich development company have already benefitted substantially from the overall Crocker Village project, and will continue to do so, even absent several gas pumps. The city council, by denying the fuel center proposal, will be acting as a worthy custodian of the environment and of future generations.
Martin Tremblay
Location:
Submitted At: 11:33am 01-03-22
We are home owners at 2441 Curtis Way and we strongly oppose the addition of a fuel center next to the Safeway store in Crocker Village.
Martin Tremblay and Jill Oviatt
rebecca botelho
Location:
Submitted At: 11:23am 01-03-22
I simply do not understand why this is up for reconsideration. When you determined that Jay Schenirer's vote didn't count, the council still voted to oppose the gas station, so why this appeal seems like a mute point. Aside from that obvious issue, the issue of transit funding used in this project, close proximity of gas stations ( eliminating a need) and the huge issue of traffic. Have you EVER seen a 16 pump gas station in an area with 2 lanes in and out. I have already wondered why the streets were approved at a width that doesn't even allow for you to drive by when a Fedex delivery truck is parked at some of the houses on Crocker, or for home owners to park in front of their houses. We do not need another gas station, and we certainly don't need the traffic. please use common sense and vote no, like you did the previous time.
Frank Whalen
Location:
Submitted At: 11:22am 01-03-22
I strongly oppose the gas station. Our neighborhood does not need more when we already have over 20 in a 2 mi radius. Please keep our neighborhood pedestrian and bike friendly.
Harold Thomas
Location:
Submitted At: 11:13am 01-03-22
The idea that we have to consider a staff support position for yet more carbon based fuels when climate change burned many many hundred thousand acres immediately east of Sacramento is a sign of how disconnected from reality staff has become. Does not the Caldor and Dixie fires mean anything? We have a city climate plan and city climate commission recommending decarbonization. We are not the frogs in a pot about to succumb to boiling water. Vote this proposal down. Thank you s/ Hal Thomas Rose Arruda
Location:
Submitted At: 11:05am 01-03-22
I oppose the fuel center at Crocker Village.
Kathe Barnett
Location:
Submitted At: 10:45am 01-03-22
We are in opposition to the proposed gas station at Curtis Park Village for several reasons:
1) There is an abundance of nearby gas stations on Franklin Blvd, Freeport Blvd., and Broadway. 2) We feel this is a backward step and prefer forward-thinking such as electric charging stations consistent with the future of transportation/energy.
3) A gas station is not friendly to pedestrians, bicycles and commuters. 4) We moved to Curtis Park because it was a historically signficant and interesting area. We believe a gas station is inconsistent with the character of Curtis Park.
Kathy Sananikone
Location:
Submitted At: 10:42am 01-03-22
I strongly oppose this. Curtis Park and the surrounding neighborhoods does not need another gas station, especially one so large given there are already several gas stations within less than a mile from this location.
Each time an underground fuel storage tank is constructed, possible leaks can destroy the land for decades. The access for this station would also create havoc in this "residential neighborhood", increasing the congestion already created by the Crocker Village development. We moved in to this neighborhood for its pedestrian friendly/bike friendly feel. Please do not destroy this even further by allowing this fuel station in this neighborhood.
Eric Whalen
Location:
Submitted At: 10:35am 01-03-22
As a resident of Curtis Park, I strongly oppose this proposal to build a 16 pump gas station in Curtis Park Village.
There is already an over saturation of gas stations in this area with 23 stations within a two mile radius - all with easier access for motorists. Allowing this gas station to be built makes a mockery of the city's Climate Action and Adaptation Plan (CAAP) and the governor's executive order banning new gas vehicle sales by 2035. It will create severe traffic congestion in the neighborhood, endanger health and safety of nearby residents, and destroy pedestrian and bicycle access through the area. Please do the right thing, like the council did in 2015, and vote NO on this proposal.
Lucky Rasmussen
Location:
Submitted At: 10:08am 01-03-22
Curtis Park, Land Park, Hollywood Park, Oak Park and the surrounding neighborhoods do not need another fossil-fuel station. the fact that this Planning Commission's analysis was merely a rubber-stamp of the prior 2015 write up renders this vote rather silly, no?
Please vote no on this spurious attempt to place a fossil fuel distribution center in Curtis Park Village.
Go Green!
David Terca
Location:
Submitted At: 10:00am 01-03-22
No to the gas station. There is no need and it will lead to increased traffic and safety issues.
Gerre Buehler
Location:
Submitted At: 9:42am 01-03-22
I do not think the Curtis Park neighborhood needs another fuel center. There are over 20 within a 2 mile radius..
Jennifer Cardone
Location:
Submitted At: 9:02am 01-03-22
I am Jennifer Cardone of Portola Way and I strongly oppose the construction of the fueling center at the Crocker Village Safeway. It is not necessary as there are multiple gas stations in the immediate area. The area is congested enough as it is and fueling center is not in keeping with the intent of a pedestrian friendly and alternative transportation community that Curtis Park Village now Crocker Village was said to be from the beginning of the project. Please do the right thing and vote no.
Brenna Rizan
Location:
Submitted At: 6:45pm 01-02-22
I oppose the building of an unnecessary and disruptive fuel center at the south west corner of Crocker Village.
Since Buchannan St will be "exit only" traffic increases for the fuel center will overlay pedestrian access. Already bicycle access in CPV has been degraded by re-designing the community park to EXCLUDE a bike path. Page 62 illustrates the truck delivery path. Due to congestion it would be inadvisable for a tanker to use W. Pacific Bypass (See Google Maps) forcing the tanker to go through the shopping center. This Development was purportedly based on SACOG "Blueprint" (pg 121), to integrate land use and transportation planning to curb sprawl, cut down on vehicle emission and congestion in order to improve the quality of life for residents of the region however the primary principle, "Developments should encourage people to walk, bike, use public transit or carpool to their destinations" is seemingly erased. District 5 bought into the ORIGINAL plan, not this bait and switch.
Michel Rizan
Location:
Submitted At: 5:30pm 01-02-22
There is no need for another gas station. There are 3 a short distance away. I am gravely concerned about the location which is at the foot of the Sutterville Road bridge going over the railroad tracks. If a heavy vehicle were to run off of Suttterville through the wood and metal guardrail onto the gas station 20+ feet below there could be a major disaster. The site is sandwiched between the Safeway building and the Sutterville embankment making it difficult to axcess for fire fighting. If a disaster were to happen it could compromise the integrity of the bridge, shutting down Sutterville road, light rial, and freight rail traffic. There would be many negative effects including increases traffic, less walkability, loss of future funding for public transit projects, Sacramento moving backwards enviromentally, and possibly a major shut down of important infrastructure. The positive would be making a rich man richer.
Patti Roberts
Location:
Submitted At: 4:30pm 01-02-22
I strongly oppose the proposal to build a 16-pump gas station at Crocker Village. Not only is there no need for an additional gas station when there are dozens of gas stations in close proximity with easier access for motorists, the inclusion of another gas station would draw major traffic to a predominately residential area.
Georgann Eberhardt
Location:
Submitted At: 3:54pm 01-02-22
I am a resident of Curtis Park Please vote no on the proposal for a gas station at the Safeway store in Crocker Village. The last thing we need is another gas station in this area of Sacramento. We need to focus on encouraging people to use electric cars and public transportation not to drive their cars powered by gasoline.
Georgann Eberhardt, Portola Way
Cheryl Stewart
Location:
Submitted At: 3:36pm 01-02-22
Please vote down the proposal for a 16 pump gas station at the Safeway store near Curtis Park. It would generate much more traffic and air pollution in this residential neighborhood. The proposal violates the vision of the transit-oriented community that it was designed to be.
We need more support for bicycles, pedestrians and electric vehicles - not more cars & new carbon fuel infrastructure.
Please be forward thinking in your decision-making for the future of our neighborhood and for Sacramento.
Sincerely, Cheryl Stewart
Tom Monahan
Location:
Submitted At: 3:34pm 01-02-22
I am opposed to a fuel center in Crocker Village. Much has happened in the six years since the 2015 Planning Department report, which now warrant rejection of the proposed fuel center: (1) Climate change has gotten worse, blanketing Sacramento in deadly smoke, as extreme heat, wildfires and a 2+ year drought have threatened our wellbeing and our water supply. (2) The proposal relies on fossil fuels when the automobile industry is increasingly oriented towards clean-air electric vehicles. The 23 gas stations currently within 2 miles of the site are enough to satisfy a dwindling reliance on fossil fuels. (3) The pandemic has caused the State and many businesses to require or allow employees to work from home – thus reducing the need for area commuter car use.
Sacramento should be looking to the future, not towards service to the dying dinosaur breed of gas-guzzlers already on our streets.
Tom Monahan, Portola Way
Fran Coletti
Location:
Submitted At: 3:24pm 01-02-22
Dear City Council,
The Curtis Park neighborhood is already negatively impacted by Curtis Park Village in terms of more traffic.
Another gas station will make that worse. There are already sufficient gas stations surrounding the neighborhood.
So I encourage you to do what you did before and deny this Fuel Center. It is simply not needed.
Simon Haines
Location:
Submitted At: 3:02pm 01-02-22
I remain opposed to a Safeway gas station at the Crocker Village Safeway. Part of the developer's argument in favor of the gas pumps was that Safeway would not put or keep a store at that site without a gas station on site and that Safeway needed the gas station to compete with the new Raley store on Freeport and in fact that Raley store was subsequently built without any gas station on site. And since then, a new giant ARCO station has opened down Freeport Blvd. across from the airport. There is no dearth of gas stations in our area. The Crocker Safeway itself appears to be thriving without a gas station on site and Chevron stations are part of the Safeway gas program. There is a Chevron station at 1828 Broadway (2 miles from the Crocker Safeway) and at 4000 S, Land Park Drive (1.7 miles away) plus there are 18 other participating stations within 3 to 5 miles of Crocker Drive. For those and other reasons please oppose any permit for a gas station at the Crocker Safeway.
Michael Cook
Location:
Submitted At: 11:59am 01-02-22
NO! MEANS NO! NO GAS STATION!. And we meant it the first time. I DO NOT want lines of cars waiting 30 minutes to get cheap as seen at Safeway gas stations. I have lived in my house on Jeffrey Ave since 1994 and have watched this Crocker Village project from it's begging. Safeway, originally refused to put in a store if they could not put in a gas station. Safeway, eventually agreed to put in a store IF Raley's new Land Park store didn't include a gas station. Raley's new store went in without a gas station. Allowing a gas station at Crocker Village now is a betrayal of that agreement. The City would then have to agree to Raley's putting in a gas station at their old store location on Freeport just up the street from a BRAND NEW ARCO station.
Erin Hauge
Location:
Submitted At: 11:32am 01-02-22
I oppose a 16-pump gas station and minimart at Crocker Village. 1-We don’t need more gas stations, we need more EV charging stations. Raley’s has a row of Tesla charging docks. I’ve never seen them empty and most of the folks I’ve seen charging go into Raley’s to shop. Imagine the shop fest folks would have at Crocker Village while charging their EVs! And Safeway would be doing the right thing climate-wise as a CA EV infrastructure leader. 2-Not so long ago, that land was a Brownfield site for chemical contamination. Why would anyone now want to bury big gas tanks in the ground there, right next to where people are living? 3- A gas station located off the main drag would naturally create more through-traffic in a residential neighborhood where many cars already go too fast. Pedestrians, bicyclists, families and pets are already navigating speeding drivers and stop-sign sliders in the Curtis Park neighborhood. Please oppose this gas station application.
Jeanne Baldwin
Location:
Submitted At: 11:09am 01-02-22
We do not need huge fuel trucks driving through residential area to fill huge underground tanks. This is an accident waiting to happen. This fuel site is within sight of two schools that house pre-school and K-12 students and close to a SCUSD elementary school.
This site was formerly declared to be toxic-why do we want to add another safety issue to the residents/ Haven't they declared loudly enough that they are opposed to this addition?.
Hear them (Petrovich and Safeway) out and then please vote to oppose the installation of this health hazard.
Bill Davies
Location:
Submitted At: 6:55am 01-02-22
This proposal is even more wrong now than it was the first time. With every major car manufacturer stopping production of internal combustion engines - some by 2025 - if there is going to be any sort of infrastructure next to Safeway it needs to be for EVs, not for ICE cars. The state has its own mandate as well - I believe 2035. Be forward thinking here. Y ou have high density housing with no charging infrastructure, and mass transit all clustered here, and the appropriate use of the space, if any, would be EV support.
Jennifer Henderson
Location:
Submitted At: 11:46pm 01-01-22
Putting this on or near 10th Ave is putting it on the main pedestrian and cycling route from the new pedestrian overpass. The overpass lets out on 10th Ave and that is the main shot to Curtis Park from the pedestrian bridge - meaning it is the most heavily used pedestrian road in this new development. Worse, this is already heavily in use and there are no bike lanes coming from the pedestrian bridge letting out onto 10th Ave (either the N/S or E/W stretch), so you see kids on bikes on the sidewalks or in the middle of the street already. This is area is already becoming a pedestrian hazard area and the development isn’t even finished building out. The commercial development doesn’t have walk or bike ways so we ride our bikes in the middle of a busy parking lot.
They put in unusable bike lockers, and only one bike rack in front of Safeway in the entire development so far.
This development is already amazingly anti cyclist and pedestrian in its layout and amenities.
Catherine Xia
Location:
Submitted At: 10:27pm 01-01-22
I live in Hollywood Park and there's already so many gas stations nearby. We don't need more gas stations. We need more bike parking and public transportation options. We need better bike and walking paths. I oppose putting a gas station in curtis park village.
Shannon Smith-Crowley
Location:
Submitted At: 7:10pm 01-01-22
This has been going on most of the time we’ve lived in Curtis Park, almost 30 years. The neighborhood wasn’t ever NIMBY but rather were happy that the brownfield would be cleaned up. The neighborhood was involved to have input on what the new development would be. The neighborhood insisted on full cleanup instead of spot remediation and I’m glad we did. Apparently the pollution was MUCH more extensive that originally thought. It would be a shame to put in a gas station into this remediated land (at high cost of time and money), where the gas tanks could leak. When weighing the risk of contamination it should be noted that the station really isn’t needed, considering the number of gas stations already in the area. Thank you for your consideration Shannon Smith-Crowley Montgomery Way
Patricia Moses
Location:
Submitted At: 6:07pm 01-01-22
My name is Patricia Moses, I live on 24th Street. I am strongly opposed to the fuel center proposed for Curtis Park Village.
Randall Rodda
Location:
Submitted At: 5:12pm 01-01-22
I oppose the creation of a fuel center at Crocker Village. As it stands now, with many of the storefronts yet to be leased, vehicle traffic is a bone of contention, an impediment to pedestrian and bicycle traffic from both Curtis Park and the new neighborhood. This makes no sense.
Ted Ridgway
Location:
Submitted At: 4:39pm 01-01-22
The original plans did not include gas station. It was introduced very late in the process. Developer said Safeway would not occupy the site without a gas station - the status quo shows that this was not true. The site is much too close to residences and the Children's Home, per statute. Waivers or exemptions are not warranted - the shopping center is already built and occupied, and there are already gas stations nearby (12th/Franklin, 12th/Freeport, Broadway/24th, to name three). If anything, the shopping center should install charging stations to encourage and support the use of electric vehicles. The snarl at the 12th St/Route 99 interchange would get worse by attracting gasoline customers. Those cars - idling through stoplight cycles, gridlocking each other in the 12th/Franklin intersection, put a lot of exhaust pollution into the air right here in our neighborhood. We should not have to suffer more of it. Me: Ted Ridgway, 2448 Donner Way Muriel Rosenberg
Location:
Submitted At: 4:36pm 01-01-22
I am opposed to the creation of a fuel center in Crocker Village. Vote no.
Francisco Prieto
Location:
Submitted At: 4:31pm 01-01-22
I am opposed to a fuel center in Crocker Village. There are multiple gas stations within a very short distance of this site. The entrance to Hwy 99 at 12th avenue is already inadequate to handle current traffic during significant parts of rush hour. Adding more traffic from another gas station would worsen this, with negative implications for all of 12th avenue and Franklin Blvd. Why not encourage the developer to consider instead an EV charging station(s)? With the additional time usually needed for most EV's to charge, this might also encourage commerce at the center.
Cristina Zito
Location:
Submitted At: 4:18pm 01-01-22
In opposition
Frances Freitas
Location:
Submitted At: 3:35pm 01-01-22
I am opposed to the creation of a fuel center in Crocker Village.
Kerry Martin
Location:
Submitted At: 3:31pm 01-01-22
I live in Curtis Park on Montgomery Way. I am adamantly opposed to adding a fuel center to Curtis Park Village.
Kerry Martin
Susanne Zito
Location:
Submitted At: 1:46pm 01-01-22
Why 16 pumps? It’s a Safeway in Crocker Village, not a Costco. Additionally, aren’t we all moving away from fossil fuels? Building a new gas station when there are multiple stations near by seems very short sighted.
Julia Johnston
Location:
Submitted At: 1:02pm 01-01-22
Crocker Village had the potential to be a model for infill, transit oriented development in Sacramento and the nation. Instead it is a suburban neighborhood with a big box shopping center. I have never thought a gas station with a 24-convenience store selling alcohol was a good fit for a neighborhood, but after the gas station was proposed I spent sometime looking at similar gas stations in other places in California. I found none in residential neighborhoods because they are large and brightly lite and inappropriate for a neighborhood. I have been a planner for over 25 years, and Curtis Park homeowner for over 20 years) and it puzzles me how the city can possibly think that a large gas station is a compatible use in this neighborhood. I urge the city to put residents over developers and once again reject a large gas station and convenience store that will even further erode the character of this part of the city for generations.
Hope Rabinovitz
Location:
Submitted At: 12:55pm 01-01-22
With all the new houses, there is already too much traffic. We don't need a gas station to add to it.
Debra Johnson
Location:
Submitted At: 8:49am 01-01-22
The developer said Safeway would not come to Crocker Village without a gas station. That was a lie. The developer said the Safeway would not be profitable without a gas station. That was a lie. The developer said he had to have a gas station because Raley's new store would likely have one and therefore have a competitive advantage. That didn't happen and was again a lie. As a Curtis Park resident for over 30 years, I appreciate the Safeway store shop there, as well as patronizing the other merchants in Crocker Village. There are always lots of patrons in the store, and I think this Safeway is likely the most profitable one in the area (compared to19th St, Alhambra, and University Village). There is no need for additional gas stations, as there are many within one mile of Crocker Village. It is ludicrous to place a large gas station next to a light rail station. We need to encourage more walking, biking, and public transport, not more fossil fuel consumption.
Liz Hanson
Location:
Submitted At: 7:58am 01-01-22
I am opposed to the gas station in crocker village because it will make the shopping center more hostile for pedestrians. What's the point of having a nice community shopping center on the middle of a neighborhood if you're going to make it toxic and dangerous to walk/bike to? It will also discourage public transit which would be super lame since the light rail station is right there.
Carol Blackman
Location:
Submitted At: 7:31am 01-01-22
As a neighbor/ homeowner for 40 years I oppose building a gas station in Crocker Village. There are many fuel stations nearby with closer access and convenience. No need for another one. Crocker Village was promoted as a walkable/bike-friendly community with shopping/restaurants. With large fuel trucks going in and out of a potential fueling station promotes the opposite: more gas vehicles and traffic.
The goal of building Crocker Village was to provide a community dedicated to living lightly on the earth and not create a huge footprint to negatively impact the environment.
Jeff Wilson
Location:
Submitted At: 9:06pm 12-31-21
Climate change is real. More access to fossil fuels is counterproductive. Do you really want your kids to live in a world where suburbs burn like in Colorado? If a fire starts on a dry, windy day in a Sacramento suburb will there be capacity to contain it?
Joseph Larrea
Location:
Submitted At: 6:00pm 12-31-21
Curtis Park Village (now Crocker Village) was intended to be a Transit Oriented Development, encouraging its residents and neighbors to use public transit. The plans, as originally presented, did not include a fueling center let alone one the size at Costco. Albertson’s (owners of Safeway) said this was added to compete with the new Raley’s on Freeport because otherwise it, “…wouldn’t pencil out.” Raley’s kept their promise to not put in a fuel center. There are 9 gas stations within a 2-mile radius of this proposed site…how much more gas do we need? Do the right thing…don’t allow this to proceed.
Nancy Nguyen
Location:
Submitted At: 5:47pm 12-31-21
I live on Curtis Way and I oppose the fuel center at Crocker village.
Kate Sproul
Location:
Submitted At: 5:13pm 12-31-21
I am strongly opposed to a gas fuel center in Crocker Village. I live on 5th Ave in Curtis Park.
Nancy McKeever
Location:
Submitted At: 4:20pm 12-31-21
The Council rightly denied the application in 2015 with a 7 to 2 vote. Those reasons still hold and are even more urgent in 2022. Sacramento is now a leader in climate action. I ask the City to stay true to your aggressive goals and be satisfied that the 23 gas stations within two miles of the proposed site meet public needs. Also, it would be a travesty to place any gas station, let alone a Hypermarket Fuel Center so close to the public pedestrian bridge, senior housing and city college. Three tanker trucks entering and exiting the site along with gas customers from seven urban area Safeways is too much. Please do not approve this application.
Kelly Haarmeyer
Location:
Submitted At: 4:03pm 12-31-21
I strongly oppose this fuel center, it is not needed in this community.
Michael Miller
Location:
Submitted At: 4:02pm 12-31-21
Neighbors did not oppose the developer’s submission of the Curtis Park Village proposal when it didn’t include a gas station. When the developer presented the plan to the Council, we were stunned that it included a 16-pump fuel center. The developer and Safeway both insisted that their project wouldn’t “pencil out” because they were convinced that the new Raley’s on Freeport would also offer fuel. The Council wisely denied the developer’s request because it broke the bargain struck with the neighborhood. Raley’s does not offer fuel. Safeway is fine without fuel. Multiple gas stations exist adjacent to Curtis Park; the neighborhood is not “underserved.” Entombing giant tanks under a truck-stop sized fuel center to attract gas-guzzling commuters from around the entire region under a formerly toxic railyard Superfund site that neighbors fought long and hard to ensure was clean enough for human habitation would constitute a complete betrayal to Curtis Park. Please don’t give in to greed. james moses
Location:
Submitted At: 3:47pm 12-31-21
I am opposed to a fuel center in Crocker Village. The fuel center is a Costco-sized magnet station intended to draw in participants in Safeway's Gasoline Rewards program. Its purpose is at odds with an infill project.
James Moses
24th Street
Gregory Jecmen
Location:
Submitted At: 2:15pm 12-31-21
I live on 25th Street and Curtis Park and strongly oppose the proposed fuel center in Crocker Village.
Kris Backus
Location:
Submitted At: 2:01pm 12-31-21
I live on Portola Way and I oppose the fuel center at Safeway in Crocker Village.
JOHN BAILEY
Location:
Submitted At: 1:59pm 12-31-21
I live on Coleman Way in Curtis Park and am opposed to the regional gas station proposal for the following reasons:
The Transit Oriented Development Ordinance now in place forbids a gas station in this location, for good reasons.
The traffic impacts of the gas station would be detrimental to public safety from both accident and pollution perspectives.
There are already over 20 gas stations within 2 miles of the site.
Safeway sought the station to be competitive with an anticipated gas station at the new Raley's. Raley's did not build a gas station so their argument is now unfounded.
The adjacent Sacramento City College light rail station is projected to become an Amtrak station as well. The gas station is antithetical to the pedestrian oriented goals of this transit center and jeopardizes opportunities for future state and federal funding.
Thank you,
John Bailey
Phil Goldcamp
Location:
Submitted At: 1:51pm 12-31-21
Too close to residential property.
MICHAEL SCHEIBLE
Location:
Submitted At: 12:06pm 12-31-21
Seriously? The Council has the discretion to deny to a totally unnecessary major fueling center in a mixed-use, residential area and it's staff is recommending that the project be allowed to go ahead? Safeway doesn't profit from discounted gas, its sells gas to attract patrons to its Crocker Village store and away from other groceries that involve less travel. What does this accomplish? More travel regionally, more congestion locally and more emissions of GHGs.
Doesn't the City have a policy to reduce travel and congestion, especially by GHG emitting gasoline vehicles? Instead of pursuing a 16 pump gas station Crocker Village should be making a meaningful commitment to attracting EVs. Of the hundreds of parking spaces adjacent to Safeway just two are labeled for EVs. Even this labeling is token - just a little paint on a compact space. One indicates EV charging only but has no charger (see photos).
The Council should deny the conditional use permit.
Mike Scheible, 4th Ave
Jordan Lang
Location:
Submitted At: 11:38am 12-31-21
I oppose the fuel center proposed for the Crocker Drive shopping center for several reasons: development around a light rail station should emphasize services for a high-density transit-using community, a freeway-style fueling center should not be located in a largely residential neighborhood, our neighborhood already has access to many fuel stations. The City with its long-needed action plans to fight climate change should be de- emphasizing facilities that encourage fossil-fuel consumption. Thank you, Jordan Lang, Curtis Way.
Mimi Budd
Location:
Submitted At: 10:57am 12-31-21
Please reject the proposal to build a large fuel center in Crocker Village. The fuel center creates the direct opposite impact of the transit centered intent of the infill project. It will encourage more cars, not fewer. There are plenty of gas stations nearby to serve peoples needs. And the added cars will draw more traffic and that emit more fumes in a residential neighborhood. The reasons the council rejected the project in 2015 still stand today.
The additional environmental protections passed by the council subsequent to the 2015 denial add further reason to vote against the proposal today in 2022. Please vote no. Thank you. Mimi BUDD Curtis Park Resident
BRENDA MCCULLOCH
Location:
Submitted At: 10:35am 12-31-21
I am opposed to a fuel center in the Crocker Village development.
Craig McCulloch
Location:
Submitted At: 10:20am 12-31-21
I oppose the huge gas station in Crocker Village Safeway. It is not needed with plenty other gas stations already in the area. It is not consistent with the walkable bike-friendly design of the shopping area. Please vote NO.
Joan Cusick
Location:
Submitted At: 10:14am 12-31-21
I am opposed to a fuel center in Crocker Village.
Joan Cusick
2664 Portola Way
Donna Chipps
Location:
Submitted At: 10:14am 12-31-21
I live at 3311 East Curtis Dr and oppose gas stations at the Crocker village shopping center. It is not on a major street and requires access through residential neighborhood Ryan Mesman
Location:
Submitted At: 9:57am 12-31-21
I am a resident of Crocker Drive and oppose a gas station in Crocker Village Christy MG
Location:
Submitted At: 9:50am 12-31-21
I am in favor of a new well-lighted fuel station. Many of the other gas stations do not feel safe in the area. Ideally the station would have a car wash as well.
Judy Maben
Location: 96122, Portola
Submitted At: 9:49am 12-31-21
I support the fuel center because it will give local residents a gas station where they can use Safeway credits to purchase low cost gasoline (approximately the same price as Costco). The location at the back of the lot is a good one and access off Crocker Drive is facilitated by the light at 10th Ave. That site is also far enough away from any residence.
Judith Maben, 2571 Portola Way
Aaron Carruthers
Location:
Submitted At: 9:44am 12-31-21
I am a resident of Crocker Drive and oppose a gas station in Crocker Village.
Patty Muldown
Location:
Submitted At: 9:34am 12-31-21
We can’t handle the traffic we have, Shell on franklin and 12th ave is enough, more people have electric cars, gas use is down in Crocker village
and curtisypark
Keith Haberstock
Location:
Submitted At: 9:28am 12-31-21
I am a resident of Crocker Drive and I am OPPOSED to a super fuel station in Crocker Village.
Marc Grossman
Location:
Submitted At: 9:19am 12-31-21
I oppose the gas station in Crocker Village.
Marc Grossman
3541 East Curtis Drive
Sacramento, CA 95818
Terri Hardy
Location:
Submitted At: 9:12am 12-31-21
A fuel center is not needed or wanted in this community.
Ann Kuhns
Location:
Submitted At: 9:00am 12-31-21
I live on Marshall Way and I support the gas station at Safeway. I think it is reasonable to have a gas station at that location. I support transit friendly development, but I don’t think a gas station at the location on Crocker Way and Sutterville conflicts with that. Moreover, the reality of the neighborhood in Curtis Park and surrounding areas is that most houses have 2 cars and those cars need gas.
Frank Bruno
Location:
Submitted At: 8:49am 12-31-21
I am opposed to the fuel center. I originally supported a compromise of a four-pump fuel center designed to fit in with a walkable commercial center. However the developer played Curtis Park residents and instead installed what we did not want: a regional big-box shopping center filled with national franchises, and the city planning department acquiesced to this. I was very disappointed in the city's performance on this issue.
Suzanne Love
Location:
Submitted At: 8:45am 12-31-21
I am opposed to a fuel center in Crocker Village.
9th Avenue Curtis Park
Dave Backus
Location:
Submitted At: 8:04am 12-31-21
I am opposed to a fuel center in Crocker Village - Dave Backus - Portola Way Sean Klein
Location:
Submitted At: 7:59am 12-31-21
I am opposed to the fuel center in Curtis Park Village. I live in Curtis Park and we do not need a gas station in the shopping center. Plenty of options are present in and around the neighborhood. Furthermore, Safeway appears to be doing excellent business without the gas station.
Lyn Crouch
Location:
Submitted At: 7:58am 12-31-21
I am a Curtis Park resident and believe proposed fuel center would damage our neighborhood. Crocker Village developer knows our community’s strongly held opinions about this matter and needs to let it go. There is no need for this fuel center and significant reasons against.
Lyn Crouch, Castro Way
Sunni Burns
Location:
Submitted At: 7:37am 12-31-21
I am opposed to the huge fuel center in my neighborhood.
Dorsey Griffith
Location:
Submitted At: 7:35am 12-31-21
I AM A CURTIS PARK RESIDENT AND I AM 100 PERCENT OPPOSED TO THE SAFEWAY FUEL CENTER. IT IS AN UNNECESSARY ADDITION TO CROCKER VILLAGE. PLEASE DO THE RIGHT THING AND REJECT THIS APPEAL. ONE OF THE NICEST THINGS ABOUT CROCKER VILLAGE IS THAT WE CAN WALK THERE.
LET'S ENCOURAGE A WALKABLE COMMUNITY -- NOT ONE OVERRUN BY GAS-GUZZLING CARS.
Dorsey Griffith, 8th Ave.
Lisa Brodkey
Location:
Submitted At: 4:14am 12-31-21
I am opposed to this gas station for all the environmental reasons others have expressed. In addition, I clearly remember a representative of Safeway telling residents assembled at a town hall meeting that Safeway couldn't possibly succeed here if there were no gas station. The CV Safeway is doing just fine. Drivers have many other nearby options for gas. Please vote no on this proposal.
Lisa Brodkey, Portola Way
Jason Silva
Location:
Submitted At: 11:20pm 12-30-21
As a transit oriented development, a high-volume discount fuel station is unacceptable. With the rapid changes to our climate and the urgent move to electrification reveals this proposal to be not just short-sighted but the opposite direction needed. Vote No or approve with the condition of it being an entirely electric charging station.
Jason Silva - 4th Ave
Marian Moe
Location:
Submitted At: 9:52pm 12-30-21
If you, as a member of the city council members, are committed to combatting climate change, this is your opportunity to show it. This project was "sold" as a pedestrian-friendly, close to public transportation, low emissions development. Approving a magnet multi-pump gas station is in complete contradiction to general plan policy and past positions.
Please take a look at the plans for cars queuing up in the parking lot, in front of the now Covid-necessary outside seating areas for other businesses like Peet's and Five Guys; it shows how much of a public health threat this proposal creates. As a nearby neighbor on Donner Way, I am not only concerned with the traffic this will attract, but also the air quality impacts that will have long-term effects on our health and the global health of the world.
Thank you for your consideration.
Marian Moe
Joyce Terhaar
Location:
Submitted At: 8:49pm 12-30-21
This proposal is outdated dinosaur thinking given the need for charging stations and ZEVs. CA has ambitious goals to reduce emissions and slow climate change, let’s support them rather than invest in ways that actively encourage consumer behavior that undercuts those efforts and increases emissions and the pace of climate change. We’re already dealing with drought, extreme wildfires, dangerous purple air and we are rethinking this decision? For what? So someone can compete with established gas stations and hope to get a slice of their pie? Rather than move into the future and provide services for the next generation? This makes no sense, especially if you care about young people who must live with decisions made by a generation that won’t be alive to face the consequences. Vote no on this proposal. Joyce Terhaar, 3601 Cutter Way.