5PM City Council (Closed Session Begins @ 4:00 p.m.) [Updated 08/22/2022 @ 11:50 a.m.]
Meeting Time: 08-23-22 17:00
eComments Report
Meetings Meeting
Time
Agenda
Items
Comments Support Oppose Neutral
5PM City Council (Closed Session Begins
@ 4:00 p.m.) [Updated 08/22/2022 @
11:50 a.m.]
08-23-22
17:00
36 31 21 10 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 08/22/2022 @ 11:50 a.m.] 08-23-22 17:00
Agenda Name Comments Support Oppose Neutral
16. Ordinance listing 420 4th Avenue (C.G. Hidden Farmhouse) as a Landmark on the Sacramento Register of Historic and Cultural Resources (M22-002) [Passed for Publication 08/09/2022; Published 08/12/2022; Noticed 08/12/2022] File ID: 2022-01291
5 5 0 0
19. Ordinance Amending Chapter 12.24 of the Sacramento City Code Relating to Sidewalk Obstructions and Pedestrian Interference (Passed for Publication 08/09/2022; Published 08/12/2022) File ID: 2022-01551 22 16 6 0
20. Ordinance Adding Chapter 1.14 to the Sacramento City Code, Relating to Procedure for Mayor or Councilmember Vacancies, and Amending Chapter 2.40 of the Sacramento City Code, Relating to Boards and Commissions Generally (Passed for Publication 07/19/2022; Published 07/22/2022) [Two-Thirds Vote Required] [Continued from 08/09/2022] File ID: 2022-01191
4 0 4 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 16. Ordinance listing 420 4th Avenue (C.G. Hidden Farmhouse) as a Landmark on the Sacramento Register of Historic and Cultural Resources (M22-002) [Passed for Publication 08/09/2022; Published 08/12/2022; Noticed 08/12/2022] File ID: 2022-01291
Overall Sentiment
Michelle Johnston
Location:
Submitted At: 8:28pm 08-21-22
As a 4th Avenue resident since 1996, I encourage you to vote in favor of listing the C.G. Hidden Farmhouse (420 4th Ave.) on the Sacramento Register of Historic and Cultural Resources. It is one of the oldest, intact buildings that demonstrates Sacramento's connection to our agricultural roots.
Michelle Johnston
Richard Lyons
Location:
Submitted At: 10:30am 08-21-22
As a 39+ year resident of Land Park's 4th Avenue and strong advocate of preserving our nation's and state's historic properties and sites, we would urge confirmation of the ordinance listing 420 4th Avenue C.G. Hidden Farmhouse as a Landmark on the Sacramento Register of Historic and Cultural Resources.
Richard & Debra Lyons
923 4th Avenue
Sacramento, Ca., 95818
Lynne Johnson
Location:
Submitted At: 5:40pm 08-19-22
TO: CITY COUNCIL
RE: Item # 16 - August 23, 2021 Council Agenda
SUPPORT -- C. G. Hidden Farmhouse To be added To Sacramento Registrar of Historic Places Dear Mayor Steinberg and Council Members:
As an architectural historian as well as a nearby resident to the unique 1860s brick farmhouse located at 420 4th Avenue, Sacramento, I urge you to approve the historic designation of the C. G. Hidden Farmhouse.
This property includes a rare surviving example of an 1860s brick farmhouse and several large protected trees.
The City's Preservation Commission voted that it be added to the Sacramento Register of Historic and Cultural Resources. This unique original parcel should be preserved as an historic resource.
I understand that a developer will be submitting a project application to develop land immediately adjacent to this unique historic property. The details of this proposed on what is currently a city easement have not been shared with the property owner or the public. While the historic designation of this property would not prevent a neighboring development, it would require that any proposed development undergo an environmental review per CEQA. We request that the City ensure protection measures for this historic resource before any neighboring development is approved. This is extremely important for the historic private protected trees which are adjacent to the property line.
Please approve the addition of the C.G. Hidden Farmhouse to the Sacramento Register of Historic and Cultural Resources.
Sincerely,
Lynne Johnson
957 4th Ave.
Sacramento, CA 95818
William Burg
Location: M__ndo_b
Submitted At: 5:24pm 08-19-22
The Board of Directors of Preservation Sacramento wishes to express our support of the nomination of the historic property identified as the “C.G, Hidden Farmhouse,” located at 420 4th Avenue to be added to the Sacramento Register of Historic & Cultural Resources. Our letter of support is attached.
Upper Land Park Neighbors Assn
Location:
Submitted At: 2:01pm 08-19-22
UPPER LAND PARK NEIGHBORS ASSN
Post Office Box 189442
Sacramento, Ca 95818
[email protected]
TO: CITY COUNCIL
RE: Item # 16 - August 23, 2021 Council Agenda
SUPPORT -- C. G. Hidden Farmhouse To Be Added To Sacramento Registrar of Historic Places Dear Mayor Steinberg and Council Members:
The Upper Land Park Neighbors (ULPN) Association urges you to approve the historic designation of the C. G.
Hidden Farmhouse, located in the heart of Upper Land Park.
This property includes a rare surviving example of a 1860s brick farmhouse and several large protected trees.
The City's Preservation Commission voted that it be added to the Sacramento Register of Historic and Cultural Resources. This unique original parcel should be preserved as an historic resource so that Sacramento residents can understand how our City developed and grew over the years.
ULPN understands that the property owner was told by City Staff that a developer will be submitting a project application to develop land immediately adjacent to this unique historic property. The details of this proposed on what is currently a city easement have not been shared with the property owner or public. While the historic designation of this property would not prevent a neighboring development, it would require that any proposed development undergo an environmental review per CEQA. We request the City ensure protection measures for this historic resource before any neighboring development is approved. This is extremely important for the historic private protected trees which are adjacent to the property line.
Please approve the addition of the C.G. Hidden Farmhouse to the Sacramento Register of Historic and Cultural Resources.
Sincerely,
[original signed]
Jason Van Court, Vice Chair
UPPER LAND PARK NEIGHBORS (ULPN) ASSN.
cc: Council Member Valenzuela
Council Member Rick Jennings
Agenda Item: eComments for 19. Ordinance Amending Chapter 12.24 of the Sacramento City Code Relating to Sidewalk Obstructions and Pedestrian Interference (Passed for Publication 08/09/2022; Published 08/12/2022) File ID: 2022-01551 Overall Sentiment
Sean Citizen
Location:
Submitted At: 9:52am 08-23-22
Homelessness in Sacramento has become out of control. Every major sidewalk in this city is blighted by tents, trash, and feces. Enough is enough. Y ou must pass this ordinance and start doing something to clean up this town!
John Frias Morales
Location:
Submitted At: 8:49am 08-23-22
I support the 4ft sidewalk ordinance. As an East Sac homeowner, I've walked through the Capital Freeway underpass but have been blocked by homeless encampments obstructing the sidewalks. I have a lot of compasion and empathy for the homeless, they are human beings who deserve our loving support. I pray for the safety of homeless because they are often targeted by fentanyl drug dealers and sex traffickers.
Y es, dignity for the unhoused, and justice for the disadvantaged. But what about black and brown students, little girls who have to walk on the street around the encampments. I've seen many students from midtown walking to Sutter Middle School who have to walk on the street because of sidewalk obstructions.
Many seniors walk to the Hart Senior Center at James Marshall Park on 27th street and J Street to get food at the free pantry on the 3rd Wednesday of the month. These seniors have to walk on the street because of homeless obstructions of the sidewalk. Where is the dignity of these seniors who walk on the streets? I strongly support the sidewalk ordinance so police can check in on sidewalk encampments, but also protect children and seniors in our community.
Matt Ryan
Location:
Submitted At: 8:37am 08-23-22
I support the SCC Ordinance. However, I think we need to take a step back and identify the actual issue. In order to help these people, and not stigmatize, we all need to collectively admit and say out loud, this is not a housing issue. THIS IS A DRUG AND MENTAL ILLNESS PROBLEM. Fentanyl is going to KILL 100,000 Americans in 2022. Meth permanently chemically alters their brains, not for the good. A misdemeanor is the least of their worries at this point in their lives. Safety should be the number one priority for Government officials. Until we collectively talk about the actual problem, DRUGS AND MENTAL ILLNESS, nothing will change. steve sc
Location:
Submitted At: 8:34am 08-23-22
I am a native East Sacramentan, and the change I've seen especially over the past couple years is beyond sad.
Myself and I am sure others are scared walking around by all of the homeless sites and a majority of filth. The main arteries from Midtown to East Sacramento going under the freeway are full of tents, trash, and frankly a majority of scary individuals. There was a shooting under the E Street under pass a couple weeks ago. Please explain how this is a productive activity to the overall betterment of our city. Mayor you talk about putting pressure on the county for mental health help, but to me that's a typical response to pass on something that you can't or won't handle yourself. There needs to be laws and consequences with Enforcement such as no camping,sleeping over night on city property. In recovery it's called Enabling. Y ou're not helping anyone of these people by allowing the behavior to continue. Tough love is the answer, believe me I've been through it myself, and now sober for over 30yrs and a Productive member of society. I get it actually more than you since I/ve lived it myself, and understand the mental issues and for those there needs to be somewhere for them to be placed. If we don't have the facility to do that then send them somewhere that does, but most is a substance abuse problem which is treatable for those that want to turn their lives around. The key is Willingness to do whatever it takes to get sober without that there's no chance. By this city to allow these people to live on the streets with Zero Consequences is actually helping to Kill each and everyone of them One Day At A Time.
Nancy Wolford
Location:
Submitted At: 7:50am 08-23-22
I strongly support this ordinance! It is currently a hazard to walk down many sidewalks in our city, which were built to provide pedestrian access, not a camping site. The tax payers of the city paid to have these sidewalks built and they should be used for the intended purpose, otherwise it is a misuse of public funds. The City tries to encourage pedestrian and bicycle traffic and then allows obstacles in the way of implementation. The tents and adjacent trash and belongings are not what the sidewalks were created for.
John Gerken
Location:
Submitted At: 7:21am 08-23-22
This is a very important and timely ordinance, and I hope it will be enforced swiftly and throughout the downtown area. It is critically important for all of the safety and economic factors cited in the staff report, but also important that materials and people are removed from planter strips and private property throughout the downtown area, particularly considering the level of funding available for emergency housing construction.
Ann Broderick
Location:
Submitted At: 11:32pm 08-22-22
This ordinance should be passed. A four-foot obstruction-free area of sidewalk is very important for a community that respects their young, elderly, and disabled citizens. A pedestrian-friendly environment is imperative for a vibrant city. What the penalty should be for such an infraction should be reasonable. What is more important is that it is enforced. It is imperative that plans are put in place to document who, how and the frequency of the enforcement of this ordinance.
Scott Andrews
Location:
Submitted At: 10:30pm 08-22-22
It’s just not doable to use wheelchairs or strollers without this in place. We need our sidewalks clear from obstruction. Thank you city of Sacramento.
Muriel Strand
Location: 95820, Sacramento
Submitted At: 7:19pm 08-22-22
Criminalizing the poor and homeless is a bad idea and a waste of our taxes. It's clear from the city's FAQs on advice to the public for what they can do about homelessness that the city has a gigantic attitude problem. The attached contains various suggestions for improved FAQs and for an overdue attitude adjustment.
Doug Berwick
Location:
Submitted At: 5:13pm 08-22-22
This does nothing to solve the actual problem(s) faced by those experiencing homelessness. As others have said in their responses to this ordinance, there is no identification as to where these people shall relocate after being moved from the sidewalk. Without an actual solution in place and simply asking people to move, and potentially imposing fines, this doesn't feel like anything is actually solved. This is a very frustrating ordinance, and I do strongly oppose its passage.
Karen Humphrey
Location:
Submitted At: 4:56pm 08-22-22
As a member of the committee acting on behalf of Shireen Miles, Co-chair of the Homelessness and Housing Local Organizing Committee of Sacramento Area Congregations Together, the following letter (also attached) is provided as a statement of opposition to the above referenced ordinance:
August 22, 2022
Mayor Darrell Steinberg
Members of the Sacramento City Council
City Hall
915 I Street
Sacramento, CA 95814
RE: Discussion Item #19 on August 23, 2022 Agenda (Ordinance Amending Chapter 12.24 of the Sacramento City Code Relating to Sidewalk Obstructions and Pedestrian Interference) Dear Mayor Steinberg and Members of the City Council:
The Homelessness and Housing Local Organizing Committee of Sacramento Area Congregations Together writes to oppose the passage of the above-named ordinance in the form it is on your agenda.
The staff memorandum is quite vague as to the need for this amendment to a pre-existing city ordinance, and it does not explain changes in it which go well beyond the technical “clean-up” that the memo implies is the reason for the amendment. If the only changes in the ordinance were to make non-substantive technical changes to the existing Municipal Code, we would likely not object.
However, there are two significant changes in the code that we consider both unnecessary and inappropriately targeted at the large population of unhoused people in the City of Sacramento. The first is all the additional wording explaining what the legislation seeks to prohibit; this language appears intended to send a message to homeless folks that they are a nuisance on public sidewalks. It can also be argued as overbroad and might subject the ordinance to expensive litigation.
A greater concern of ours is the upgrading of what has heretofore been an infraction to a misdemeanor.
Infractions are punishable only by fines not to exceed $500. Misdemeanors, upon conviction, carry up to a year in jail and a fine of up to $1,000. Furthermore, the ordinance calls for civil penalties on top of fines that could add not less than $250 and up to $25,000 PER DAY that the violation continues.
We know that a healthy city does not have tents, shopping carts, and other personal effects filling up sidewalks and potentially interfering with both pedestrians and businesses. It is evidence we are badly failing our citizens who are unable to secure housing for a variety of reasons. But the heavy-handed “deterrence” in this amendment will do little to alleviate the situation except to criminalize more unhoused and add to their economic deprivation by piling fines, penalties, and court fees on them. It will also likely take up public resources that would be better spent solving the problem than adding to it.
The way for Sacramento to get unhoused people off its sidewalks is to give them meaningful assistance to address their needs and find them housing. Y our ordinance potentially saddles unhoused people with criminal records that make it much harder to access housing, and with potential long-term debt they may never be able to pay off. How does this help alleviate either the plight of thousands of unhoused people on our streets or make our streets cleaner or safer?
We urge you to do the following in your consideration of this ordinance:
1. Revise the current draft to return violations to the level of infractions and limit, or eliminate, the possibility of civil financial penalties beyond the fine structure for infractions.
2. Remove the additional language that implicitly targets unhoused people and change the language so that it addresses only the technical and clarity reasons cited for its existence in the first place. Also add to your legislative record the necessity for any new language in the ordinance. Without these changes, the amendment should be rejected.
Whatever you do about this ordinance, we also ask that you take a step back and consider the bigger picture.
The reality is ordinances like this one and the ones you placed on the ballot in November and the ones being adopted by the Sacramento County Board of Supervisors this month are basically meant to placate the citizens and business interests who insist you need to “do something” to rid the city of what we all agree is a huge problem of people living unhoused on our streets and public lands.
Our public leaders must get serious about developing a comprehensive plan to END HOMELESSNESS in Sacramento in concert with Sacramento County, other cities, Sacramento Steps Forward, and a multitude of other stakeholders (including, by the way, the people whose lived experience as unhoused could really inform what you do). Sacramento ACT has been asking for this for years. Y ou cannot really solve homelessness and its impact on Sacramento without such a plan.
Sacramento ACT appreciates the considerable efforts city leaders have already made including your siting plan for temporary housing and your recognition of the County’s critical role in addressing this issue. It’s not fair to say you have done nothing, and it is also true that this is a multi-faceted social, economic, and political crisis that been years in the making and cannot be solved by any single action. Sometimes specific actions and temporary measures are necessary. But without a plan and indicators of success that can be measured and seen, you cannot assess the value of any specific action.
Please eliminate the punitive and targeted elements in this ordinance before you pass it or drop it altogether; and please commit to the comprehensive plan process we continue to urge you to pursue.
Respectfully,
Shireen Miles, Co-Chair
Homelessness and Housing Local Organizing Committee, Sacramento ACT Becky Garrow
Location:
Submitted At: 4:42pm 08-22-22
As a resident of the city, I strongly oppose this ordinance and encourage the councilmembers to decline to pass it.
Elders, adults, teens, and children experiencing homelessness face tremendous barriers. There is a lack of affordable housing in Sacramento. One study found that "...each additional percent of income spent on rent by severely impoverished Los Angeles households predicts an additional three percent growth in the number of people experiencing homelessness." There is a direct correlation between income, affordable housing, and homelessness.
Sacramento's population experiencing homelessness has increased by 67% since 2019.
People experiencing homelessness are more likely to come from the LGTBQ community, be a veteran, be Black, and suffer from a disability. Not only is this ordinance discriminatory against people who are poor, it is discriminatory against people of color, people with disabilities, and people who served the United States of America as a servicemember.
We do not want Sacramento to be known for passing policies that are cruel and directed at people of color, people with disabilities, LGTBQ people, and people who bravely and selflessly served our country. We want to be known as a city that addressed homelessness, that worked tirelessly to address the root causes of poverty, economic instability, and unaffordable housing - we want to be known as the city that came up with realistic and humane solutions to homelessness - not the city that criminalized disadvantaged communities for being poor.
Criminalizing homelessness (which this ordinance will do, by imposing fines) is disproportionally burdensome to low-income people and people experiencing homelessness; further, a misdemeanor can prevent people from qualifying for employment or housing, which ultimately is an effective solution to ending homelessness (increasing economic stability).
People are unable to remain in perpetual motion. They must rest, they must sleep. If the City of Sacramento does not have affordable housing, transitional housing, or temporary shelter for people, it is unreasonable to expect that this ordinance - asking people to move - will solve these issues. This population will simply move again. The problem will not be solved - it will just rotate around the city.
As a city, as a community, we must identify space for adults and children to go when they are displaced. I welcome integrated affordable housing in my neighborhood, and hope other who have supported this measure below will also advocate for affordable housing options in their neighborhoods, too. linda keating
Location:
Submitted At: 3:50pm 08-22-22
I live in east Sacramento and used to enjoy walking to midtown for events/dinner etc. Because of the tents and other materials allowed to block the sidewalks, this is no longer possible. I am also terribly concerned with the actions of the people using these sidewalks for all sorts of activities that children walking to school do not need to see. I have personally seen drugs being injected, people having sex, people without cloths, people urinating and dedicating, stolen merchandise displayed for sale... I urge you to return the sidewalks to the general population.
Debbie Snapp
Location:
Submitted At: 2:36pm 08-22-22
_I strongly support the City code amendment relating to sidewalk obstructions and pedestrian interference. As residents of East Sacramento, we are no longer able to safely walk from our neighborhood into midtown, or in many parts of midtown, which we previously felt safe doing. Since when did it become acceptable for some members of society to lay claim to public property, thereby making it unusable by the rest of society, including those of us who pay taxes which ultimately pay for said sidewalks. Since we refuse to walk in the street, putting ourselves at risk of being hit by a car or bicycles, we are unable to walk down any street where homeless encampments are spread out across the sidewalks.
While we are not handicapped (in a wheelchair or using a cane or walker) we cannot believe the City has not yet done anything to ensure these members of society are able to freely use the sidewalks, as well as parents pushing children in strollers.
While we don’t think they should be allowed to camp on any public area, sidewalks, entrances to buildings, etc., requiring them to keep their “belongings” within bounds (within a reasonably sized tent) and providing at least 4 feet of clear space for others via the amendment to this ordinance is a step in the right direction. Many of the sidewalks are plenty wide to still allow a tidy homeless camp and also the safe passage of pedestrians. Allowing them to spread across sidewalks and take over entrances to buildings is completely unacceptable. If the City cannot move these encampments, they need to enforce the reduction of their size by regularly clearing out the trash and accumulation of junk that occurs when they are permitted to stay in one place for too long.
Joseph Smith
Location:
Submitted At: 2:01pm 08-22-22
Sacramento Loaves & Fishes opposes this ordianance that would make camping on the sidewalk a misdemenor and impose fines.
A misdemenor on a persons record can prevent them from getting housing or employment. In a time where we should be helping people from homelessness, this ordinance will criminalizing them.
If you are asking people to move from where they are located you must have a place for them to go. Pushing them from sidewalks will push them onto Caltrans property. Caltrans will push them back onto the sidewalk. The cycle will continue until shelter and housing are provided.
Please ask those who support this measure to identify space in their neighborhood for people to go when they are displaced. They can't have it both ways.
Stephenie Alstrom
Location:
Submitted At: 1:09pm 08-22-22
It’s time to not allow camping on City sidewalks, on vacant lots, State property, City property, parks, rivers, etc! Sacramento is NOT a KOA. It’s time to enforce laws that have been put in place for good reason. Stop blaming lack of housing and shelters, too! There is help for those that choose help.
And it’s time for the Mayor and our City leaders to wake up and do something! Our City is an embarrassment.
Just look at our highway on/off ramps. Tents and trash everywhere. It’s disgusting, unsafe and makes me sad to live here now when I’ve been a lifelong resident. Do something to clean up our City!!! Zoe HHarrison
Location:
Submitted At: 12:35pm 08-22-22
"An ordinance that allows for a four-foot obstruction-free area of sidewalk as well as keeping the area clear around the entrances to buildings aligns with not only public safety goals, but also with supporting the economic vitality of businesses throughout the City."
Please pass this ordinance.
Michelle La Grandeur
Location:
Submitted At: 11:48am 08-22-22
While I empathize with the unhoused and their rights, I also support the rights of the many vs. the rights of the few. Please vote yes to enact this ordinance to ensure all Sacramentans have free and safe passageway on our public sidewalks.
John M
Location:
Submitted At: 9:08am 08-22-22
I fully support this new city ordinance proposal. Sacramento needs clean,safe, open sidewalks to prosper and maintain itself as a thriving capitol city.
Ariel Andrus
Location:
Submitted At: 8:54am 08-22-22
Thank goodness, the residents need their sidewalks back. I only ask to feel safe again. Walking around Sacramento alone as a woman, even just to McKinley park, has felt unnerving. I need to dodge safe crosswalks to avoid encampments that have poured into my path to the park. That is just one example. It makes me not want to raise my children in this city. Walking into the library and being flanked with passed-out homeless people along the entrance path takes the joy away.
Business owners deserve a welcoming entrance. I have turned away from local businesses multiple times because they have turned into loitering hangouts for the homeless. Being homeless is no excuse to trash our sidewalks. We can no longer put the homeless above the safety of our residents.
Syeda In
Location:
Submitted At: 4:35pm 08-19-22
Thank you for considering rational controls on public encampments to allow business, trade and car free travel throughout the area without criminalizing homelessness. As a business owner I only ask that we create safe zones for businesses, staff, families to operate and walk/bike their neighborhoods without having hazards in the way and without feeling unsafe. Our unhoused choose to congregate together for safety and community but it creates severe problems for businesses and families that live in those neighborhoods and want to do business there.
The business and building I own is so crowded with tents I cannot walk to the front door. I cannot safely walk on the sidewalks or around the building.
Matt Huber
Location:
Submitted At: 1:30pm 08-18-22
Shame on Sac City Council for even considering such a cruel ordinance. Give people somewhere decent to be and they won't need to sit, lie or camp on the sidewalk. But instead city gov are chasing people out of the margins people are pushed into after being priced out of housing. Now you're trying to solve it with fines and court dates.
Shame on you.
Agenda Item: eComments for 20. Ordinance Adding Chapter 1.14 to the Sacramento City Code, Relating to Procedure for Mayor or Councilmember Vacancies, and Amending Chapter 2.40 of the Sacramento City Code, Relating to Boards and Commissions Generally (Passed for Publication 07/19/2022; Published 07/22/2022) [Two-Thirds Vote Required] [Continued from 08/09/2022] File ID: 2022-01191
Overall Sentiment
Chris Brown
Location:
Submitted At: 9:03am 08-23-22
Public involvement in policy creation is a bedrock principle of democratic governance. In view of the ongoing and increasing climate emergency public involvement is even more necessary. I oppose the proposal to "waive Rule 7, section K.1 of the Council Rules of Procedure
which requires ordinances to be referred to the Law and Legislation Committee before coming to council." It is essential that the public see what the Council is considering and that a committee of the Council consider public concerns before proposed ordinances are daylighted for the first time and voted on mere days later.
I also oppose the elimination of Ad Hoc Committees "2.40.160 Standing and ad hoc committees.
City boards and commissions may not establish standing committees or ad hoc committees." Due to the complicated nature of some of the policy and budgetary matters which come before Boards and Committees AD Hoc committees provide a tool for research and distillation of materials for consideration by the whole. As long as Ad Hoc committee meetings are properly noticed, and the public has a right to observe and comment on their deliberations they should not be eliminated as a tool, since their use can improve the quality of the Boards and Commissions deliberations.
Erica Jaramillo
Location:
Submitted At: 7:38am 08-23-22
I OPPOSE portions of Agenda Item #20
1) Pass a Motion to waive Rule 7, section K.1 of the Council Rules of Procedure which requires ordinances to be referred to the Law and Legislation Committee before coming to council; and 2) adopt an Ordinance adding Chapter 1.14 to the Sacramento City Code, relating to the procedure for Mayor or Councilmember vacancies, and amending Chapter 2.40 of the Sacramento City Code, relating to boards and commissions generally.
• Prohibits boards and commissions from establishing standing committees and ad hoc committees. • Limits the amount of time a chairperson can serve to one consecutive term.
These changes are intended to reduce and/or minimize the authority, responsibilities and the overall oversight and protections for Sacramento City residents that the Sacramento City's Independent Citizens Boards and Commissions currently do. Rationale for these proposed changes are unclear. More importantly, while the city's Sunshine ordinance places City Council and ad hoc committees under CA's Brown Act, the Act does not apply to other ad hoc or temporary advisory committees composed of less than a majority of the body and with defined purposes and limited time frames. More transparency and dialogue about the rationale for these changes and who requested them is needed. Does a distinction exists between the term of an office and an individual commissioner's tenure in that office? Who gets to decide and who will monitor and track when someone is jointly appointed (per subsection A of 2.40.100 Limitation on number of consecutive terms served)? Without this answer the floodgates are open for unfair treatment and unethical practices to occur. Y ou all need to be forthcoming and transparent about how this decision gets made. Otherwise, these exemptions seem to only become relevant when it is convenient for elected officials.
The public has the right to know about the history of ad hoc committees formed, its members, the reasons for their creation, and the work that resulted from each committee. Especially as it relates to the impacts of city residents. What business was done in these groups that impacted us as city residents and tax payers.
Moving forward with these changes, particularly if appointed board and commission members were not given reasonable notice or meaningfully engaged in the decision making process will only foster a culture of underhanded deals by the proponents of these changes, city councilmembers, and city employees, that the public knows nothing about.
I strongly oppose the above stated proposed restrictions to the Sacramento City Boards and Commissions, as well as the bypassing of the "required" process of an ordinance going before the Law and Legislation Committee (which allows more Public Comment to be heard) before coming to the City Council for a vote.
Finally, as a District 5 constituent and voter, I ask that instead DO act to approve a Council rule of procedure that enables it to address and act on commission/board recommendations in a timely manner.
Barry F. Boyd
Location:
Submitted At: 4:22am 08-23-22
I fully OPPOSE portions of Agenda Item #20
City of Sacramento City Council Report
915 I Street, 1st Floor Sacramento, CA 95814
www.cityofsacramento.org
File ID: 2022-01191
August 23,2022 at 5pm
Discussion Item #20
1) Pass a Motion to waive Rule 7, section K.1 of the Council Rules of Procedure which requires ordinances to be referred to the Law and Legislation Committee before coming to council; and 2) adopt an Ordinance adding Chapter 1.14 to the Sacramento City Code, relating to the procedure for Mayor or Councilmember vacancies, and amending Chapter 2.40 of the Sacramento City Code, relating to boards and commissions generally.
• Prohibits boards and commissions from establishing standing committees and ad hoc committees. • Limits the amount service as a chairperson to one consecutive term to create opportunity for more voices to serve in this capacity.
There seems to be a push to continue to reduce and/or minimize the authority, responsibilities and the overall oversight and protections for Sacramento City residents that the Sacramento City's Independent Citizens Boards and Commissions currently do.
Without Ad Hoc Committees the research and work that is put into coming up with solutions that benefits Sacramento City Residents will be removed.
Can you imagine not having the ability to do this type of work that the Sacramento Disability Advisory Commission, Sacramento Community Police Review Commission, Planning and Design Commission, Measure U Community Advisory Committee and many other “Independent” Sacramento City Boards and Commissions do?! I strongly oppose the above stated proposed restrictions to the Sacramento City Boards and Commissions, as well as the bypassing of the "required" process of an ordinance going before the Law and Legislation Committee (which allows more Public Comment to be heard) before coming to the City Council for a vote!!! Who is/are the individual, individuals and/or special interest that is/are behind this Power Grab?! Barry F . Boyd
Charlene Jones
Location:
Submitted At: 11:10am 08-22-22
As a member of League of Women Voters of Sacramento Co., we feel strongly that volunteer city boards and commissions be equipped to manage effectively, as they elevate community voices and advise the legislative bodies of government. We reiterate our opposition to city ordinance language that disallows the use of commission/board ad hoc committees. Rationale for such a proposal continues to be unclear. While the city's Sunshine ordinance places City Council ad hoc committees under CA's Brown Act, the Act does not apply to other ad hoc or temporary advisory committees composed of less than a majority of the body and with defined purposes and limited time frames. In addition, what is proposed does not address a long-sought recommendation that the Council establish a clear process and timeline by which it considers commission/board advisories. We ask that the Council reconsider this prohibition of commission/board ad hocs, knowing how indispensable they are to carrying out many commission/board responsibilities, and act to approve a Council rule of procedure that enables it to address and act on commission/board recommendations in a timely manner. Thank you for your deliberations.
PO Box 162140, Sacramento CA 95816 – [email protected] - PreservationSacramento.org
Preservation Sacramento – Founded in 1972 as Sacramento Old City Association
Mayor Darrell Steinberg
915 I Street, 5th Floor
Sacramento, CA 95814
August 1, 2022
RE: Project M22-002, 420 4th Avenue, the C. G. Hidden Farmhouse
Dear Mayor Steinberg and members of the Sacramento City Council,
The Board of Directors of Preservation Sacramento wishes to express our support of the nomination of the historic property identified as the “C.G, Hidden Farmhouse,” located at 420 4th Avenue to be added to the Sacramento Register of Historic & Cultural Resources. This property was unanimously approved by the Preservation Commission on May 18 and will be presented to the City Council for a final vote during a public hearing at the Council’s meeting of August 23, 2022.
We reviewed the Preservation Department staff’s research on this remarkable property, which includes a rare surviving example of a brick farmhouse from the early 1860s. Additional contributing elements of the historic property include several large Valley Oaks and Claro Walnut trees that surround the building and are an important part of the property’s historic setting. Together, the farmhouse and the associated trees help the property convey its historic significance to the early 1860s. The historic building, the relatively large lot that includes remains of the original farm, and surrounding heritage trees combined allow the property to retain a high degree of historic integrity. Overall, the “C.G. Hidden Farmhouse,” located at 420 4 th Avenue is a distinctive historic property that Preservation Sacramento would like to see included in the Sacramento Register. After meeting with the owner of this property, we understand a developer acquired a portion of land directly adjacent to the C.G. Hidden Farmhouse. This land contains portions of heritage trees that are contributing elements of the subject historic property. This land has been a city easement since 1972, and the developer that acquired the property recently brought an excavator on to the easement and began digging and grading inside of the drip line of one of the large, protected Valley Oak trees located right on the property line close to the historic building. This excavation work could not only have a
PO Box 162140, Sacramento CA 95816 – [email protected] - PreservationSacramento.org
Preservation Sacramento – Founded in 1972 as Sacramento Old City Association determinantal impact on the protected trees, but the heavy equipment could also potentially result in damage (direct or indirect) to the historic brick structure, which is a fragile building due to its age and materials.
Under Sacramento City ordinance 17.604.240, any resource nominated as a landmark or contributing resource shall be considered a landmark or contributing resource and shall be subject to the restrictions and protections of article IV as further provided in section 17.604.400. It is our understanding that the Preservation Department was not alerted of this work, and there were no required permits to work on the city easement or near the protected trees.
We also understand City staff recently proposed to abandon this easement. In an effort to ensure this historic resource within our city is preserved for generations to come, we highly recommend that the City Council vote in favor of its nomination as a property to be listed in the Sacramento Register on August 23. Prior to the vote to formally list the property, we also request that any proposed work on the easement be reviewed by the Preservation Department in advance. Based on recent events, we additionally recommend that the City Council vote to oppose the proposed abandonment of the adjacent city easement (August/September hearing date TBA), at least until plans for its development formally go through all of the required CEQA provisions to ensure the protection of this historic resource.
Sincerely,
William Burg
President, Preservation Sacramento Board of Directors
August 22, 2022
Mayor Darrell Steinberg
Members of the Sacramento City Council
City Hall
915 I Street
Sacramento, CA 95814
RE: Discussion Item #19 on August 23, 2022 Agenda (Ordinance Amending Chapter 12.24 of the Sacramento City Code Relating to Sidewalk Obstructions and Pedestrian Interference)
Dear Mayor Steinberg and Members of the City Council:
The Homelessness and Housing Local Organizing Committee of Sacramento Area Congregations Together writes to oppose the passage of the above-named ordinance in the form it is on your agenda.
The staff memorandum is quite vague as to the need for this amendment to a pre-existing city ordinance, and it does not explain changes in it which go well beyond the technical “clean-up” that the memo implies is the reason for the amendment. If the only changes in the ordinance were to make non-substantive technical changes to the existing Municipal Code, we would likely not object.
However, there are two significant changes in the code that we consider both unnecessary and inappropriately targeted at the large population of unhoused people in the City of Sacramento. The first is all the additional wording explaining what the legislation seeks to prohibit; this language appears intended to send a message to homeless folks that they are a nuisance on public sidewalks. It can also be argued as overbroad and might subject the ordinance to expensive litigation.
A greater concern of ours is the upgrading of what has heretofore been an infraction to a misdemeanor. Infractions are punishable only by fines not to exceed $500. Misdemeanors, upon conviction, carry up to a year in jail and a fine of up to $1,000. Furthermore, the ordinance calls for civil penalties on top of fines that could add not less than $250 and up to $25,000 PER DAY that the violation continues.
We know that a healthy city does not have tents, shopping carts, and other personal effects filling up sidewalks and potentially interfering with both pedestrians and businesses. It is evidence we are badly failing our citizens who are unable to secure housing for a variety of reasons. But the heavy-handed “deterrence” in this amendment will do little to alleviate
Letter to Mayor and Council
P. 2
the situation except to criminalize more unhoused and add to their economic deprivation by piling fines, penalties, and court fees on them. It will also likely take up public resources that would be better spent solving the problem than adding to it.
The way for Sacramento to get unhoused people off its sidewalks is to give them meaningful assistance to address their needs and find them housing. Your ordinance potentially saddles unhoused people with criminal records that make it much harder to access housing, and with potential long-term debt they may never be able to pay off. How does this help alleviate either the plight of thousands of unhoused people on our streets or make our streets cleaner or safer? We urge you to do the following in your consideration of this ordinance:
1. Revise the current draft to return violations to the level of infractions and limit, or eliminate, the possibility of civil financial penalties beyond the fine structure for infractions.
2. Remove the additional language that implicitly targets unhoused people and change the language so that it addresses only the technical and clarity reasons cited for its existence in the first place. Also add to your legislative record the necessity for any new language in the ordinance. Without these changes, the amendment should be rejected.
Whatever you do about this ordinance, we also ask that you take a step back and consider the bigger picture. The reality is ordinances like this one and the ones you placed on the ballot in November and the ones being adopted by the Sacramento County Board of Supervisors this month are basically meant to placate the citizens and business interests who insist you need to “do something” to rid the city of what we all agree is a huge problem of people living unhoused on our streets and public lands.
Our public leaders must get serious about developing a comprehensive plan to END HOMELESSNESS in Sacramento in concert with Sacramento County, other cities, Sacramento Steps Forward, and a multitude of other stakeholders (including, by the way, the people whose lived experience as unhoused could really inform what you do). Sacramento ACT has been asking for this for years. You cannot really solve homelessness and its impact on Sacramento without such a plan.
Sacramento ACT appreciates the considerable efforts city leaders have already made including your siting plan for temporary housing and your recognition of the County’s critical role in addressing this issue. It’s not fair to say you have done nothing, and it is also true that this is a multi-faceted social, economic, and political crisis that been years in the making and cannot be solved by any single action.
Sometimes specific actions and temporary measures are necessary. But without a plan and indicators of success that can be measured and seen, you cannot assess the value of any specific action.
Please eliminate the punitive and targeted elements in this ordinance before you pass it or drop it altogether; and please commit to the comprehensive plan process we continue to urge you to pursue.
Respectfully,
Shireen Miles, Co-Chair
Homelessness and Housing Local Organizing Committee, Sacramento ACT
FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS About Homelessness in the City of Sacramento Sacramento City’s official website has a list of FAQs with answers (labeled A# below) about the various ways unsheltered people can be criminalized when sheltered people are bothered by unsheltered people’s existence near their businesses and neighborhoods. Given the very unfriendly tone of the city’s suggestions, it’s not at all surprising that neighborhoods have rejected the council’s city-wide Master Plan for ‘temporary’ camping and tiny-house sites. http://homeless.cityofsacramento.org/faqs
Sheltered people are often unaware of how easy it is to be labeled as a criminal and how much harder it then becomes to obtain secure and permanent shelter, let alone healing from PTSD, paying off the predatory fines and fees inflicted by various judges, and getting an education and a living-wage job. In other words, homelessness is a problem we will never be able to sweep and arrest our way out of. Sweeping our problems under the rug is not a solution.
In that spirit, here are a few attempts to suggest more constructive alternative tactics. I welcome additional suggestions.
Alternative Answers (AA#)
Q1: Who can I call with an inquiry or complaint regarding encampments established by persons experiencing homelessness?
AA1:
a. Have you discussed the situation with the homeless people? Be aware that homeless people will almost certainly feel fearful that your approach bodes problems such as police citations and fines that will just make their lives even less manageable.
Many of the ‘solutions’ (sic) used to sweep homelessness under the rug, like exiling homeless folks from residential and commercial areas, often cause PTSD and fix nothing. Unsurprisingly, the unsheltered tend to retreat to areas where few sheltered people spend much time.
Reassure yourself that while a small fraction of the homeless population suffers from a basic psychosis such as schizophrenia, such unfortunates are much more often the victims of violence than the perpetrators. The fact that none of the city’s suggestions refer to violent attacks from homeless people implies they are not at all common.
A more significant fraction is people who lost their job, their car or their apartment, or they got sick and didn’t have good or any insurance, or they got divorced, or their student loan servicer garnished their wages, or they still had PTSD from war or other prior abuse, or they were a victim of ID theft, fire, flood, or a car crash, etc. You have the power to help bring homeless people back into the Sacramento economy and community by developing relationships with specific individuals based on the common ground of individual and egalitarian human conversation.
Reassure yourself that many homeless people are quite intelligent and capable, possessing various skills that supported them before misfortune sank their financial boat. Treating homeless people the way you would like to be treated is a good way to evaluate their abilities and aptitudes. Most people like doing things that are truly useful, yet city and county government seem insistent on not empowering capable homeless people to assist in the management and care of the increasing population of homeless people in Sacramento. b. Have you discussed the situation with your neighbors? Your neighbors may benefit from understanding the information under #1 above. c. If the homeless people are really bothering you, please write down the observable or measurable problems you are experiencing. Since sane people who are homeless will do whatever is necessary to survive, evaluate your survival necessities and your hypothetical choices if you could not obtain safe and secure shelter and had no ready access to potable water, healthy food, or sanitation. How would you like sheltered people to treat you, if you were broke and on the street?
If you have witnessed drug use, be aware that there is no evidence that addicted homeless people are more violent or dangerous than addicted sheltered people. d. Invite your neighbors to identify the observable problems in writing.
Again, share with them the suggestions above. After a complete assessment of the situation, consider the best possible recipients of this information and suggestions for effective action. Like affordable housing. While this takes more time and energy than just calling 911, it also frees city staff for other priorities.
e. Contact Sacramento City’s Department of Community Response at [email protected] or 311
r. Contact your city councilperson: http://www.cityofsacramento.org/Mayor-Council g. Contact Sacramento County’s Dept of Human Assistance 916-875-3555 Ombudsman Office Sacramento Child & Adult services (IHSS, CPS & APS) 916-875-2000 h. Contact Sacramento County’s Dept of Health Services https://dhs.saccounty.gov/Pages/ Contact-Us.aspx
i. Contact your county supervisor
https://bos.saccounty.gov/Pages/default.aspx
j. To help a homeless person reclaim their property if it’s been taken by city staff without the homeless person’s permission.
http://www.cityofsacramento.org/Police/How-Do-I/Obtain-My-Property-or-Evidence Q2: I submitted an inquiry or complaint regarding an encampment established by persons experiencing homelessness to 311. Why hasn’t a Sacramento police officer arrested the occupants? Why hasn’t the encampment been removed or relocated? AA2: Being homeless is not a crime. There are many common reasons people become homeless against their will. As you know, housing is quite expensive in California, and illegal evictions are not rare. Obviously, an illegal eviction is a crime, though it’s rarely prosecuted. The city of Sacramento’s Tenant Protection Program offers some assistance: http:// www.cityofsacramento.org/Community-Development/Code-Compliance/Tenant-Protection- Program
One big reason an encampment hasn’t been relocated is that no better location is available. The city’s Master Plan for well-managed encampments and other temporary housing has yet to be implemented. Although the plan distributes these sites throughout the city, among all council districts, opposition from residents and businesses and funding challenges have slowed progress.
A proper location for an encampment would be where there are water and sewer connections, as well as cooking facilities. Protection such as trees or overhead canopies would buffer weather extremes. As you know, the climate is changing and climate refugees will likely be arriving sooner than you expect.
Another reason to delay a sweep of an encampment is that it causes a lot of misery and uses a lot of unnecessary time and energy on the part of homeless people who could potentially do something more constructive with that time and energy in addition to finding water, food, and shelter every day. It also uses government staff time which could be used in far more constructive ways, and which is paid for by your taxes.
There is one policy which if approved by local government would reduce the homeless population to proportions not seen since before Reagan was elected. Charging a fee for bedrooms not being slept in would be very effective. Unfortunately, most really effective policies require too much political will.
Q3: Can persons experiencing homelessness start a fire to cook food or stay warm? AA3: Obviously, anyone can start a fire. And obviously they are not supposed to. However, the survival instinct is very strong. It is foolish to expect people to just give in and die of hunger or cold.
Q4: I see a person experiencing homelessness using drugs or drinking in public. What can be done?
AA4: Ask that person if they need help. Consider calling 211 for assistance from health professionals. Alternatively, pretend there is a wall around him or her. If you can’t hear them over the wall, you can stop worrying about your safety.
Q5: I see used syringes on a public street or sidewalk. Can the City pick them up? A5: Yes. The City can dispatch a contractor to remove used syringes from public property.
Reports of used syringes on public property should be directed to 311.
AA5: The city does have some good advice here. Hopefully such a report leads to immediate action.
Q6: A person experiencing homelessness is camping on my private property. Can I have that person removed?
A6: Yes. In general terms, a person entering or remaining upon your private property is trespassing in violation of state and local law. Reports of someone trespassing on your property and refusing to leave should be directed to the Sacramento Police Department at 916-808-5471.
However, reports of someone trespassing on the private property of another should be directed to 311.
AA6: Please review the suggestions under AA1 above. Respect for the property rights of another suggests consulting that property owner as to whether the homeless person has the property owner’s permission to be there.
Q7: A person experiencing homelessness was trespassing on my private property and left trash behind. Who is responsible for removing the trash? A7: Owners of private property are responsible for maintaining their property free of junk and debris. Property owners must arrange for trash removal and secure their properties from trespassers.
AA7: If you don’t feel like hiring a hazardous waste professional to remove abandoned items, just review the situation logically, and carefully inspect and analyze the appearance of said items.
If you are a homeowner, you probably have various tools on hand, such as shovels and gloves, that will allow safe disposal into your garbage can.
If you see used syringes, here is some information designed to ensure safe handling and disposal thereof. Bear in mind that having a safe injection site locally should eliminate the hazard of finding them unsecured.
Safe Handling & Disposal of Needles and Syringes
https://esa.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/esa/publication/attachments/Prevention_protocol- Safe_Handling_of_Needles-Final1-14.pdf
Reusable containers for the collection of sharp items used in human and animal medical applications
https://www.saiglobal.com/PDFTemp/Previews/OSH/As/as4000/4200/4261.PDF Sharps Disposal Containers
https://www.fda.gov/medical-devices/safely-using-sharps-needles-and-syringes-home-work-and- travel/sharps-disposal-containers