5PM City Council (Closed Session Cancelled) [Updated 05/31/2022 @ 11:55 a.m.]
Meeting Time: 05-31-22 17:00
eComments Report
Meetings Meeting
Time
Agenda
Items
Comments Support Oppose Neutral
5PM City Council (Closed Session
Cancelled) [Updated 05/31/2022 @ 11:55
a.m.]
05-31-22
17:00
50 18 6 9 2
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 Cancelled) [Updated 05/31/2022 @ 11:55 a.m.] 05-31-22 17:00
Agenda Name Comments Support Oppose Neutral
12. Local Government Matching Grant (LGMG) Resolution for State Funding Application - 440 Arden Way State Surplus Property Affordable Housing Project File ID: 2022-01097
12 3 8 0
17. Step Up in Sacramento-Veev/Lennar Donation Project- Land and Predevelopment Loan - Approval to Allocate Funds and Approval to Enter into a Funding Agreement (Two-Thirds Vote Required) File ID: 2022- 00225
1 0 0 1
26. Overview of the Comprehensive Cannabis Study and Policy Recommendations Regarding Ownership, Land Use, and
Fiscal/Economic Issues File ID: 2022-01052
1 1 0 0
27. Ordinance Deleting Chapter 10.32 of the Sacramento City Code Relating to Cruising (Majority Vote Required) {To be published in its entirety upon adoption} File ID: 2022-01169
4 2 1 1
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. Local Government Matching Grant (LGMG) Resolution for State Funding Application - 440 Arden Way State Surplus Property Affordable Housing Project File ID: 2022-01097 Overall Sentiment
Daphne MACKLIN
Location:
Submitted At: 5:41pm 05-31-22
My name is Daphne Macklin. I live in District 2, near the Arden Arcade Light Rail Station. The issue should be taken off of the consent calendar at this time. There are issues with the entire 440/492 project. The matter should be tabled until there is more clarity on the project as a whole. My e-mail address is tlk2014dlmgmail.com Lana Moffitt
Location:
Submitted At: 5:27pm 05-31-22
This is to strongly urge the Council delay consideration of the affordable housing project proposed for state property at 440 Arden Way until the facts are corrected. The staff report is not accurate by implying plans are modified in response to neighborhood feedback. Although the developer has a website for comments the first community meeting to present their plans is tonight, May 31st, at which point it is obviously expected to be a done deal. I am asking this proposal be delayed and staff be directed to ensure there is true collaboration with the entire community, not just the business corridor as their report seems to imply.
Michael O'Sullivan
Location:
Submitted At: 5:27pm 05-31-22
This project is not in keeping with the goals for using surplus property. There is an abundance of vacant lots on Del Paso Blvd that have remained undeveloped for as long or longer than the armory but the redevelopment agency sat on them and sat on them. The need is for housing that people can own and thereby grow their generational wealth. This rental project will do nothing to improve that or benefit the area. It seems the current plan is too jam as much "housing" in small lots in poorer areas while protecting corporate development. There is a need for shelter, mental health facilities and child care but there is also a need to promote areas where small gains have been made. The Dixieanne area has seen slow but steady improvement in attractive affordable housing from Mutual Housing and others which has helped home values and desirability. Don' use this money to negatively impact our area.
Jane Woehl
Location:
Submitted At: 4:58pm 05-31-22
This project is too big with 124 rooms and will have a lasting negative impact on the Woodlake neighborhood. The intersection of Oxford and Arden has a limited capacity for more traffic, the surrounding streets (many w/out sidewalks) are too narrow to accommodate more traffic and parking furthering poor air quality. This project with more traffic and lack of parking does nothing to improve the walkability of Woodlake, a critical factor in assessing the quality of life for residents and the future interest in Woodlake as a desirable place to live. Why not scale it down to fit the neighborhood, a project more suitable for a neighborhood established in the 1930s.
Bernice Jimenez
Location:
Submitted At: 4:48pm 05-31-22
The proposed project in its current form is too large in scope and will create various problems for the neighborhood ranging from parking and traffic congestion, to environmental complications from a large scale project in such close proximity to residences and our only park, a decrease in access to adjacent park during construction, safety concerns due to its proximity to the lightrail station, etc. Additionally, the road intended as the only gateway into the project is used by many to access lightrail parking lot.
As a long term resident of Woodlake and board member of the Woodlake Neighborhood Association I ask the council to vote against this funding until project managers can present a scaled back option.
Elaine Jackson
Location: 95815, Woodlake, Sacramento
Submitted At: 4:20pm 05-31-22
This is the 3rd Low Income project in approximately .8 miles apart. Why put so many in a District that has, Low Performing Schools, the worst Air Quality in the City, a lack of healthcare services, a lack of employment opportunities, an area with Below Average Income for the city of Sacramento? Why say it is very needed here, when actually 95815 has the Lowest Rents in the whole County. The average is $1450. It is the very lowest, Sac Bee’s website. Why is the City supporting the Segregation of Affordable Housing in an already Low Income Area? The need is much greater in East Sacramento, Land Park, Curtis Park and Hollywood Park and all of these area's are along the Light Rail and. High Rents. This Neighborhood has a lack of sidewalks, no crosswalks, extremely narrow streets. Children will walk to school in the street with Vehicles and Bikes. Consider Council is trying to improve Pedestrian Safety. Please vote against Segregation. Please spread out Low Income Housing.
Tommy Young
Location:
Submitted At: 3:38pm 05-31-22
Many were led to believe that this resolution was for $9M in gap financing. It is not.
City Council has an obligation to abide by all relevant state housing laws when evaluating the BRIDGE proposal, including the Housing Accountability Act (HAA), AB 686 and the mandate to Affirmatively Further Fair Housing (AFFH).
California Government Code § 65589.5, the Housing Accountability Act, prohibits localities from denying housing development projects that are compliant with the locality’s zoning ordinance or general plan at the time the application was deemed complete, unless the locality can make findings that the proposed housing development would be a threat to public health and safety.
The City of Sacramento should support staff’s recommendation to support the project’s application for State Local Government Matching Grant funds. Supporting this application for grant funding furthers the project and leverages available state resources to its development.
Karen Solberg
Location:
Submitted At: 3:02pm 05-31-22
This project does not need to be squeezed into a one acre site when a 40 acre site In Folsom has been identified.
The schools in North Sac are among the worst in the entire state yet the powers that be continue to do educational red lining and force poor and minority students into this dismal area. This is not in keeping with liberal values. Folsom has good schools, the site is near transportation, there are many more employment opportunities there, and the prosperous people there are more able to finance the added costs associated with the influx of students. How dare anyone presume that the people of District 2, the poorest district in the entire city, should always be looked to for this added burden. Again, not in keeping with liberal values.
Dave Carness
Location:
Submitted At: 2:54pm 05-31-22
Please pull this item from the consent calendar. This important issue needs full transparency and open debate.
Aniela Burant
Location:
Submitted At: 1:38pm 05-31-22
Sacramento is incredibly unaffordable due to a lack of investment in both affordable and market-rate housing.
Affordable housing is particularly hard to construct to due to the constraints on funding and how difficult it is to get these projects approved. We have an opportunity to make housing incredibly more affordable for 124 families. We have the opportunity to change hundreds of peoples lives for the better. Please support the matching funds.
Jeffrey Lu
Location:
Submitted At: 1:12pm 05-31-22
Our household supports this transit adjacent affordable housing project. Sacramento is in dire need of expanded housing options. Siting affordable housing on surplus state owned land near transit will be a positive change for Sacramento. Thank you.
Dean Dal Ben
Location: 95823, Sacramento
Submitted At: 10:49pm 05-30-22
I will send each council member my statement in opposition to item 12 as the ecomment section does not allow sufficient space.
I urge you to oppose this item. It does not help the city or the people of Sacramento. It takes steps backwards in addressing the many housing and homeless issues we face. It continues the same old fake solutions, the efforts that have failed and will continue to fail. There is no such thing as free money. Someone pays and in this case, few benefit.
If asked how much has been spent in Sacramento from government funds, taxes, fees, subsidies, tax incentives, needs based programs and grants, set asides, and other sources (federal, state, and local) in the last decade for housing for the homeless or those with low income, no one here could answer that question. I ask you those questions today. I eagerly await your answers. Tell the people! Transparency! Dean Dal Ben
6 Shipman Ct. Sacramento, CA 95823
District 8 [email protected]
Agenda Item: eComments for 17. Step Up in Sacramento-Veev/Lennar Donation Project- Land and Predevelopment Loan - Approval to Allocate Funds and Approval to Enter into a Funding Agreement (Two-Thirds Vote Required) File ID: 2022-00225 Overall Sentiment
Zion Taddese
Location:
Submitted At: 6:38pm 05-31-22
I would love to invite you all to support and be part of the groundbreaking and blessing ceremony for Shashemene Institute of Alternative Natural Holistic Medicine on June 11th at 11am-4pm.
Hope to see you then!____
Thank you.
Zion Taddese the founder of Shashemene Institute Of Alternative Natural Holistic Medicine Campus! Agenda Item: eComments for 26. Overview of the Comprehensive Cannabis Study and Policy Recommendations Regarding Ownership, Land Use, and Fiscal/Economic Issues File ID: 2022-01052 Overall Sentiment
Heather Schafer
Location:
Submitted At: 5:48pm 05-31-22
My name is Heather Schafer and I am the CEO of Agora C Business Services. I represent numerous licensed non-storefront retail owners, who would ask that the Council consider placing consumption lounges on a future agenda item. Further, we would ask that the Council clarify the legality of a stand-alone consumption lounge where NO cannabis products will be sold onsite, yet consumers are legally allowed to congregate, consume food and non-alcoholic beverages, watch sporting events and have legal cannabis products delivered to the odor controlled physical address of the "lounge" where they can consume said products in a social environment.
Thank you
Agenda Item: eComments for 27. Ordinance Deleting Chapter 10.32 of the Sacramento City Code Relating to Cruising (Majority Vote Required) {To be published in its entirety upon adoption} File ID: 2022-01169 Overall Sentiment
Mariana Sabeniano
Location:
Submitted At: 7:14pm 05-31-22
On behalf of the Sacramento Latino Community Roundtable, I support deleting this outdated city ordinance.
Cathy Rodriguez
Location:
Submitted At: 7:14pm 05-31-22
My name is Cathy Rodriguez Aguirre, President & CEO, Sacramento Hispanic Chamber of Commerce. I am in support of eliminating the "No Cruising" ordinance in Sacramento. The Lowrider Commission has been active in meeting with the businesses and community in the areas that currently have this ordinance and found out that when these beautiful cars come in, the restaurants, shops, and small business see a high increase in buying from those that drive these cars and those that come out to see the cars. It is an economic uptick for the corridors. This ordinance was put in place during a time in history when many laws were being put in place that deeply affected the Latino community. This "No Cruising' ordinance has felt to many in the Latino community that this was directed to us. Lowrider cars are part of our culture, our heritage, and our families. This is an opportunity to show support for the Lowrider Commission, all the members, and our entire community.
Michael Ault
Location:
Submitted At: 4:47pm 05-31-22
On behalf of the Downtown Sacramento Partnership and Old Sacramento Advisory Council, appreciate the thoughtfulness to recognize ordinance changes to City Code related to cruising. With Old Sacramento Waterfront welcoming thousands of visitors daily to the district, essential environmental management fundamentals will continue to be key to ensuring the district is equitable and accessible for all. We look forward to working in concert with our city partners on addressing enforcement gaps and striking a balance that provides safety and enjoyment for all.
Dianna Newborn
Location:
Submitted At: 9:27am 05-31-22
Dear Council Members,
I am the owner of Top Hand Ranch (horse drawn carriage company) we have worked in Old Sacramento since the 1970's Over the years it has been a challenge to work in Old Sacramento for the traffic is so bad at times that it takes up to 20 to 25 minutes to give a carriage ride to a tourist that has come to Old Sacramento to enjoy a nice day visiting. If the ordinance is not being enforced now, then maybe it should be for the cruising is almost every weekend now with the illegally parking, illegally drinking, speeding and jumping the cars going on now. I hear they will police their selves but if they are not doing that now then I feel they are not going to after the ordinance is deleted either. If there was ever an emergency the first responder would have even hard time entering Old Sacramento