5PM City Council (Closed Session Begins @ 4:00 p.m.) [Updated 01/25/2022 @ 12:40 p.m.]
Meeting Time: 01-25-22 17:00
eComments Report
Meetings Meeting
Time
Agenda
Items
Comments Support Oppose Neutral
5PM City Council (Closed Session Begins
@ 4:00 p.m.) [Updated 01/25/2022 @
12:40 p.m.]
01-25-22
17:00
34 11 1 7 0
Sentiments for All Meetings
The following graphs display sentiments for comments that have location data. Only locations of users who have commented will be shown.
Overall Sentiment
5PM City Council (Closed Session Begins @ 4:00 p.m.) [Updated 01/25/2022 @ 12:40 p.m.] 01-25-22 17:00
Agenda Name Comments Support Oppose Neutral
12. Appeal: Orchard Lane Alcohol CUP (P20-012) [Published 01/14/2022] File ID: 2021-01187
7 0 6 0
13. Ordinance Amending City’s Fee and Charge Report for Recycling and Solid Waste Utility Service Rates [Passed for Publication 1/11/2022; Published 01/14/2022 and 01/19/2022] File ID: 2021-01427 2 1 1 0
Public Comments-Matters Not on the Agenda 2 0 0 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 12. Appeal: Orchard Lane Alcohol CUP (P20-012) [Published 01/14/2022] File ID: 2021-01187 Overall Sentiment
Amie Tokuhama Chapman
Location:
Submitted At: 2:55pm 01-25-22
To the Mayor and City Council,
As a member of the Natomas Community, I feel I must express, for the record, my opposition to the proposed sale of alcohol at the Orchard Lane Arco. The Natomas Community has already successfully opposed the original request for alcohol sales at this location; the conditions have not changed, nor have our feelings. It is my understanding that the agreement to not sell alcohol at the planned 7-11 complex on the north corner of that same intersection will be contingent on this decision. Please do not allow sales at the Arco, there is no need- the corridor between I-5 and I-80 is already oversaturated with establishments selling alcohol. This is not the direction we wish to take our community.
Thank you for your consideration,
Amie Tokuhama Chapman
Z Wayne. Johnson
Location:
Submitted At: 6:32pm 01-24-22
I am elected President of ROCA (River Oaks Community Assoc.) affected by this proposal. We have adamantly objected to alcohol sales at this location since conception in 2005/2006, 2009, 2010 and again at 2021 PDC hearings with hundreds of residents comments and letters. City Staff reports, prior PDC and ABC decisions, the NUSD (Natomas Unified School District) and ROCA have been consistent in denying approval. A wealth of existing alcohol sellers are within 1/4-1/2 mile of this location. We oppose another in such close proximity to 2 growing schools, 4 parks and large vacant land adjacent to the ARCO minimart, where homeless have encamped with tents, RVs, campers and cars. The latter is an ongoing struggle without the added attraction of alcohol sales.
Many homeless can jointly buy 6-packs and wine bottles, as well as they buy single cans. We ask Council Members to please support the community and deny this CUP Appeal. Additional petition signatures in separate submittal.
Angela Hearring-Jackson
Location:
Submitted At: 9:32pm 01-21-22
Mayor Steinberg & Council Members
I am an advocate and Natomas resident and OPPOSE this alcohol permit.
Please add my name to the list of others that oppose this permit:
*Former Mayor of Sacramento- Heather Fargo
*Natomas Unified School District
*Numerous Natomas Residents
*Planning & Design Commission
*Three Natomas Neighborhood Associations
*The President, Board and Members of River Oaks Community Association I do not wish to see enhanced crime induced by the influence of alcohol, increased loitering, property value depreciation and or under age drinking.
The passing of this permit will be detrimental to the community, neighborhood, properties and future generations.
This establishment will create an environment that will impact the health of Natomas youth, as well as normalize convenient access to alcohol in close proximity to public schools.
Please have the courage to take a stand and oppose this appeal for Orchard Lane alcohol permit.
Thank you,
Angela E. Hearring
Paris Maloof-Bury
Location:
Submitted At: 6:57pm 01-21-22
I live in 95834 and I have a child attending Leroy Greene Academy. Please do NOT allow the sale of alcohol at the Arco station. It is already hard parenting and protecting our children, especially while working full time and relying on the community to protect our kids while they're at school and while we're at work. As parents, we rely on "the Village" to help raise our children, even if that only means by not compromising our community's values and promise to keep designated areas safe and free from drugs and alcohol for our kids. I know that several of our council members are former school board members. Please remember our children and keep our schools safe. Thanks!
Noel Mora
Location:
Submitted At: 1:59pm 01-21-22
Dear Council Members,
My name is Noel Mora and I am a member of the Natomas Community Association, a Measure U Commissioner, and South Natomas Resident. I am writing to express my opposition to this proposal, as there already exist a great number of locations that sell alcohol in this area. It is important for our neighborhoods to avoid the harmful externalities that come with an oversaturation of alcohol vendors (externalities that especially affect our youth, given the proximity of this location to two schools). I ask that you please consider this as you vote on this item.
Thank you.
Heather Fargo
Location:
Submitted At: 1:05pm 01-21-22
Please vote to DENY this appeal. Alcohol sales in this location are opposed by city staff, city planning commission, Natomas USD, all community associations in South Natomas, and hundreds of community residents. And the denial is supported by the city's adopted policies, as presented in the city staff report. Thank you.
Sachiko Konatsu
Location:
Submitted At: 12:14pm 01-21-22
Natomas Community Assn. is in opposition of the sale of alcohol at this site. We urge the Council to uphold their previous decision in denying the sale of alcohol. There are enough alcohol sales in the surrounding area to meet the needs of the neighborhood. When the site was initially approved for the gas station, there were agreements made not to sell alcohol at this location due to the proximity of the schools and the desires of the community.
These agreements should continue to be upheld by this Council. If allowed the Council is placing our neighborhoods at risk for the sale of alcohol from other future builders where agreements not to sell are also in place. We urge the Council to put the safety of our children first and not the wants of corporations. This site often has school aged children making purchases there due to the proximity. Please respect the needs of the public and continue to do your part in keeping our children and neighborhoods safe.
Sachiko Konatsu
NCA President
Agenda Item: eComments for 13. Ordinance Amending City’s Fee and Charge Report for Recycling and Solid Waste Utility Service Rates [Passed for Publication 1/11/2022; Published 01/14/2022 and 01/19/2022] File ID: 2021-01427 Overall Sentiment
Bill Motmans
Location:
Submitted At: 11:36am 01-25-22
The continued use of "snail mail" as a way to measure/gauge homeowners thoughts on proposed Utility fees is regressive as well as ridiculous in this day and age.
Alexandrina Chavez
Location:
Submitted At: 4:56pm 01-21-22
To Sacramento City Council:
On behalf of Californians Against Waste, I am stating and submitting our letter of Support for the proposed rate adjustment for recycling and Solid Waste programs. The City of Sacramento is already posed to miss the implementation deadline for SB 1383 by 6 months, opening the city up for fines of up to $10,000 per day (a total of up to $1.8 million just for this delay). This rate increase will not only show significant progress in implementing SB 1383 and likely prevent large fines, but will also set the city on the path to achieving its climate goals.
Best,
Alexandrina Chavez
Policy Associate
Californians Against Waste
Agenda Item: eComments for Public Comments-Matters Not on the Agenda Overall Sentiment
Lily Xu
Location:
Submitted At: 4:45pm 01-25-22
Dear Council Members,
My name is Lily and I am a medical student at California Northstate University, Advocacy Co-chair of our Sacramento Street Medicine chapter, and resident of District 1. I am writing to you regarding the Evergreen RV Encampment sweep that occurred on 1/23 where 50 residents of our community were forced to abandon their homes. It is disheartening to see the uprooting of the residents’ vehicles and places of shelter, in which many have been living in for over 2 years. These actions are unacceptable AND make it more difficult for providers to do their jobs. Having stability in a place of living, whether an encampment or a house, is essential for receiving continuity of care. These are members of our community and our neighbors. As the past few years have demonstrated, population health is everyone’s responsibility. Therefore, it is frustrating to see city administration take action that directly opposes our efforts to deliver healthcare. We urge you: STOP THE SWEEPS
LAURA ASHLEY
Location:
Submitted At: 11:39am 01-24-22
Please read attached letter. Thank you
January 25, 2022
Mayor Steinberg and members of the city council,
Regarding the Meadowview property and your plans for it. I am thankful that you bought the property which will offer a more permanent solution for the homeless; however, I hear a lot of the same language you have used before.
In the Sacramento Bee the article I read starts off with a safe parking lot for homeless to live, but quickly adds statements from Councilwoman Vang and Ryan Brown that it MAY be used for affordable housing.
It continues with economic opportunities and maybe a park or nature preserve. It sounds like more beautifying of neighborhoods. It sounds like you are putting nature and animals before human beings. It sounds like a property of affordable homes that we all know will be mostly market rate, and a small amount for low income. They also said “maybe a homeless shelter.” Maybe? It should absolutely be your first priority! HOUSING FIRST. You are all giving the public JUST MORE OF THE SAME. A great big public pacifier. The article quotes Ryan Brown stating that building civic amenities will bring resources that with benefit the unhoused community. The only benefit important to them right now is SHELTER.
HOUSING FIRST!
You can’t keep spending money meant for the homeless population on economic opportunities. This property was bought with the $100 million to address homelessness, not for civic amenities or economic growth. It is not meant to beautify the neighborhood, it is meant for the homeless.
The money given to this city for the homeless and housing situation should NOT be spent on planning, or services, until there is housing first. Services come second, and HOUSING FIRST. Any affordable housing that you buy, build, or develop should be for those with no homes period. At the rate you are currently housing the homeless in properties with mostly market rate units, how long do you think it will take to provide for 11,000 people and the growth between now and then? I believe that not ONE MORE CENT should be spent on beautifying neighborhoods, building improvements, waterfronts, parks, etc. as long as there are men, women and children living outdoors with NO ALTERNATIVES!
I will keep reminding all of you that there are 11,000+ men, women and CHILDREN living outdoors trying to sleep in 39 degree weather or through storms that collapse their tents IF they still have one.
STOP THE SWEEPS! You rob the homeless of their only shelter and they will soon be moving into your neighborhoods. Desperation will lead to more crime as well.
GET THE TINY HOMES OUT OF STORAGE NOW! Why would you withhold shelter like that from people so desperate to get warm? 200 of your homeless citizens died in 2021. One was a 7yr old girl.
WHY?
The fact that there is even one child, one senior, one disabled person and especially one veteran living on the streets is shameful. We the people all know what you can do in one day if it is important to YOU.
Make the 11,000+ men, women, and children without shelter your number one priority today.
Laura Ashley
921 11th Street, Suite 502 ● Sacramento, CA 95814 ● (916) 443-5422 FAX: (916) 443-3912 ● www.cawrecycles.org
January 21, 2022
Mayor Darrell Steinberg
City of Sacramento
915 I Street,
Sacramento, CA 95814
Re: Strong Support for Rate Adjustment for Recycling and Solid Waste Services Dear Mayor Steinberg and Members of the City Council:
On behalf of Californians Against Waste, I would like to express strong support of rate adjustment recommendations to implement SB 1383 programs by the City’s Utility Rate Advisory Commission.
SB 1383 creates a target for a 75% reduction in the disposal of organic waste from 2014 levels by 2025. In addition to reducing landfill methane emissions, the diversion of edible food from landfills creates opportunities to feed millions of food insecure Californians. In order to achieve SB 1383’s goals, it is vital that proper rate adjustments be made to fully implement SB 1383 implementation.
The City of Sacramento is already posed to miss the implementation deadline for SB 1383 by 6 months, opening the city up for fines of up to $10,000 per day (a total of up to $1.8 million just for this delay). This rate increase will not only show significant progress in implementing SB 1383 and likely prevent large fines, but will also set the city on the path to achieving its climate goals.
Organic materials comprise two thirds of the waste stream when disposed of in landfills, and modern landfill gas capture systems can only capture half to three quarters of landfill emissions.
Based on statewide statistics, organic materials are the most prevalent item in the waste disposal stream and a third of the material going to landfills is readily compostable. This is costly to our environment and economy. In the context of meeting the state’s 75 percent recycling goal, strict greenhouse gas limits, and new organic waste recycling initiatives, it is imperative that these materials are diverted and recycled.
Establishment of mandatory programs is proven to spur the development of processing and recycling infrastructure and adjusting rates to ensure the success of these programs is an important step. The diversion of organic waste towards composting or anaerobic digestion facilities generates a fourfold increase in local jobs compared to landfilling the same material as it takes much more effort to make a quality soil amendment than to bury rotting food in a hole. Reducing methane from landfills is not only a low-hanging fruit to cut methane emissions locally- it will also result in significant co-benefits such as assisting the City of Sacramento in achieving its Climate Resolution supporting carbon zero by 2030.
Commercial and residential organics programs have been proven successful in cities across the country, including most of the Bay Area and several in Sacramento region. Californians Against Waste is confident that the rate adjustments suggested by the City’s Utility Rate Advisory Commission prove to be both an economic and environmental success story.
Please do not hesitate to contact us [email protected] and [email protected] or (916) 443-5422 for additional information.
Sincerely,
Alexandrina Chavez
Policy Associate
Californians Against Waste
Nick Lapis
Director of Advocacy
Californians Against Waste
To: Sacramento City Council
From: River Oaks Community Association (ROCA), President Z. Wayne Johnson Date: January 24, 2022
RE: Appeal - ARCO Alcohol CUP, P20-012
1. Our opposition is about community planning, community values, and conditions attendant to the original ARCO station approval, which all supported this location as an alcohol-free “island” in our neighborhood. ARCO should not be allowed to renege on the original agreement that allowed their construction, nor past rulings by the ABC. We pushed off attempts to sell alcohol when ARCO station was first proposed in 2005 and 2006. Rebuffed again in 2009, 2010 and with PDC in 2012. The Staff Report clearly lays out this history, and the hundreds of residents opposition comments.
2. Non-approval of alcohol sales at ARCO is consistent with City Planning regulations, multiple City Planning staff recommendations and several prior Planning and Design Commission and ABC decisions. The community directly adjacent to ARCO continues to grow with houses, apartments, townhomes and commercial development intensifying the original baseline concerns.
3. ARCO is within close proximity to two (2) schools and three (3) parks, which is an allowable disqualifier under City and State regulations, and our community (and prior official decisions) strongly supports such continued denial. ROCA will never support such sales in this area of our community.
4. The ARCO driveway and adjacent undeveloped property have been repeated sites of homeless encampments, RVs and homeless cars. Sales of readily available alcohol will predictably exacerbate the situation. The Appeal applicant has stated during the Planning and Design Commission hearing that there have not been any problems on site with sales to minors or loitering. This is largely due to lack of alcohol sales there!
5. Despite some comments, ROCA is not universally opposed to alcohol sales as evidenced by the existence of at least 6 locations within ½ mile where patrons can purchase or sit and enjoy alcohol. We do however advocate for the integrity of our schools and parks. We actively participate in area clean-ups, homeless care and reporting of campers on private property, help identify those potentially needing a welfare check by the City Police and formed our own volunteer patrol as added eyes and ears for police and Code Enforcement. We see the existing problems, which are not always captured in police stats, because we coordinate directly with City staffs, assistance groups or give aid to those in need.
6. Planned communities are just that, planned. And residents move there based on the community nature and make-up. Older neighborhoods are reflective of the standards at the time, grandfathering of existing uses and what the neighborhood wants or tacitly accepts. ROCA residents should not be ridiculed for following regulations in place and exercising their right to voice their concerns for community standards, stability and safety. We are not doing anything other neighborhoods cannot choose to do or have previously done throughout Sacramento.
7. An earlier comment by one PDC Commissioner stated that ROCA/Willow Oaks area is an affluent community, and therefore seeking to be treated differently than poor and racially different areas of the city. We respectfully, but ardently object to that statement. We are a community of both blue and white collar workers, retirees, millennials, and seniors and are diverse in racial and economic make-up, as well as the division between homeowners and apartment renters.
8. Approving this ARCO CUP in actuality sets the stage for approval of alcohol sales at two (2) sites at the intersection of W. El Camino Ave. and Orchard Lane. The 7-11 store, in the proposed and approved River Oaks Marketplace, has agreed to NOT sell alcohol, as long as the ARCO minimart continues to not be approved to sell. Obviously, that eventuality increases the community concerns. We applaud 7-11 for showing good corporate/community citizenship.
9. Saturation is an added issue for consideration. Every major intersection on W. El Camino Ave. , from El Centro Rd. to Northgate Blvd., has at least one alcohol dispensing location already.
There are an additional four (4) locations on Garden Highway to the rear of our community.
Adding essentially two (2) at the last remaining intersection and in close proximity to our schools and parks is unnecessary and problematic. ARCO has operated successfully for over 12 years without alcohol, and such sales by their own comments are a de minimis portion of their overall revenue. This is hardly a compelling argument for overriding the series of Staff Reports and Recommendations, wisdom of past PDC and ABC decisions, concerns of Natomas Unified School District and the majority wishes of the affected community.
We respectfully seek the support of the City Council in opposing this alcohol CUP Appeal for all the above cited reasons. Do not alter the nature of our community and its design, or impact the efforts to maintain our quality of life and protection of our students. Thank you.
NOTE: This letter was circulated as a petition to our community in the last few days, and signed copies were emailed to Mayor and Council today, as well as to Jose Quintanilla of the Planning Department.