5PM City Council
Meeting Time: 08-30-22 17:00
eComments Report
Meetings Meeting
Time
Agenda
Items
Comments Support Oppose Neutral
5PM City Council 08-30-22
17:00
33 16 5 8 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
08-30-22 17:00
Agenda Name Comments Support Oppose Neutral
02. Dissolution of the Sacramento Heritage, Inc. Non-profit Corporation File ID: 2022-01411
1 0 1 0
07. Cooperative Purchase Contract, Acceptance of Grant, and Budgetary Adjustments: Electric Refuse Truck Update File ID: 2022-01522 1 1 0 0
10. Sacramento Regional Transit Streetcar Alignment (S15131800) File ID: 2022-01542
1 1 0 0
13. Environmental Impact Report and Preliminary Design Approval for the Broadway Bridge Project (T15155300) [Noticed 07/26/2022] [Continued from 08/09/2022] File ID: 2022-01107
7 3 1 2
16. 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 and 08/23/2022] File ID: 2022-01596
5 0 5 0
Public Comments-Matters Not on the Agenda 1 0 1 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 02. Dissolution of the Sacramento Heritage, Inc. Non-profit Corporation File ID: 2022-01411 Overall Sentiment
William Burg
Location: M__ndo_b
Submitted At: 9:15am 08-30-22
The Board of Directors of Sacramento Heritage Inc. has not been able to meet to discuss the matter of dissolution, or the disposition of the funds in the Sacramento Heritage Inc. bank account, amounting to approximately $16,000. The Board should be able to meet and discuss this issue, but has not been able to hold a meeting for over a year due to unduly complex and difficult requirements to hold public meetings imposed by the City Manager. The City Council should defer a decision on this item until the SHI Board can meet, and the City Manager should waive the new staff report requirements for this meeting as they are unnecessary and serve no public purpose. We were not even informed that this item would be on today's agenda! Before dissolving Sacramento Heritage Inc. and disposing of $16,000 in assets held by the nonprofit, including the still-unassigned revenue in the Hamilton Fund, the Board members should be informed of the plan, and have the opportunity to meet.
Agenda Item: eComments for 07. Cooperative Purchase Contract, Acceptance of Grant, and Budgetary Adjustments: Electric Refuse Truck Update File ID: 2022-01522
Overall Sentiment
Matt A
Location:
Submitted At: 5:49pm 08-29-22
It's great to see my community taking the lead in the state on some of these electrification efforts. Fully support! Agenda Item: eComments for 10. Sacramento Regional Transit Streetcar Alignment (S15131800) File ID: 2022-01542 Overall Sentiment
Phi Ngo
Location:
Submitted At: 3:14pm 08-29-22
I hope that the street car has priority over cars similar to San Francisco Van Ness Avenue.
Agenda Item: eComments for 13. Environmental Impact Report and Preliminary Design Approval for the Broadway Bridge Project (T15155300) [Noticed 07/26/2022] [Continued from 08/09/2022] File ID: 2022-01107 Overall Sentiment
Jared Westfall
Location:
Submitted At: 8:15pm 08-29-22
The bridge will be a benefit to the city but please consider protected bike infrastructure opposed to the current unprotected painted lane. This bridge will be here for a long time and provides an opportunity for safe biking infrastructure instead of continuing the car center focus of our community.
Matt A
Location:
Submitted At: 6:21pm 08-29-22
Please take off consent and discuss/ask for a review of preliminary design plan, especially re: bike lane safety improvements.
Given the recent Council presentations and policies on climate and transportation priorities, please give this (much appreciated) project a little attention. If you want more people walking and biking, please give them a safe way to do it safely - concrete curb or bollards, not just paint.
Thank you for your consideration.
Ivan Ruiz
Location:
Submitted At: 6:15pm 08-29-22
We need better infrastructure for pedestrians in Sacramento. This bridge should prioritize the movement of pedestrians, cyclists, and public transit first, before it becomes destroyed by cars. If we want to revitalize Broadway the best way to do so is by creating a safe area for those who walk, and make car drivers like myself uncomfortable. Our city staff suffers too much from carbrain.
Nick Meyer
Location:
Submitted At: 5:50pm 08-29-22
As others have noted, building a large infrastructure project like this without a Class 1 bikeway or a Class 4 bikeway with hard protection (not flex posts) is backwards and outdated. It is unacceptable in 2022 and will be completely out of touch with standards whenever this bridge is actually built.
The failure of this city to look forwards to a future of active transportation is shown again in this project.
Phi Ngo
Location:
Submitted At: 3:21pm 08-29-22
We are not immune to the car "sideshow." People will gather to admire a new bridge as they did for LA's 6th Street Viaduct Bridge. Please protect all users of the bridge. Unfortunately, paint doesn't protect cyclist or pedestrian. They lose every time when there is a collision between the two. A curb helps a pedestrian but does little if the bike lane is class 2. Please please make it feel/look safe to bike. It's a great opportunity to connect Broadway to West Sacramento.
Anthony Martinez
Location:
Submitted At: 2:39pm 08-29-22
Support but with a caveat. Please consider upgrading the bike infrastructure to a fully protected lane. Currently the only East-West bicycle crossing that is safe is Tower Bridge. That is a dangerous ride anytime in the afternoon, and I fear a similar lane would lead to similar danger.
With a protected bike lane, the city would ensure safe East-West passage for commuters and families.
Matthew Kessing
Location:
Submitted At: 8:37am 08-29-22
With the recent surge in aggressive drivers, the uptick in pedestrian road deaths, and the lack of commitment from the City on any measurable enforcement initiatives aimed at traffic compliance, the City Council needs to do a better job demanding that new infrastructure gets passive measures to ensure that pedestrians and cyclists will be safe. Class II, on-street bike lanes aren't good enough; a stripe of paint won't protect me from an angry driver, a distracted driver, or a drunk driver. I would like to see a real effort to provide the kind of infrastructure that is consistent with our long-term climate plan that includes active transportation as a viable alternative. And that needs to start with new infrastructure that is built to a standard that is better than setting aside a painted gutter for cyclists.
Agenda Item: eComments for 16. 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 and 08/23/2022] File ID: 2022-01596
Overall Sentiment
Julia Mullen
Location:
Submitted At: 10:02am 08-30-22
As a resident of council district 4, I oppose making it difficult for boards and commissions to carry out their work. I agree with the comments of The League of Women Voters. Additionally, the council should consider adding a position to the City Clerk's Office to assist in staffing Boards and Commissions. Thank you.
Charlene Jones
Location:
Submitted At: 10:02am 08-30-22
As a member of League of Women Voters of Sacramento County, I support their position and oppose city ordinance language that disallows the use of commission/board ad hoc committees and adds a process that consumes city staff time by codifying any “subcommittee” as a Brown Act body that must be requested of and approved by the City Council’s Personnel & Public Employees Committee, and then approved by the full Council.
The rationale for a proposal that eliminates ad hoc committees continues to be unclear. What is clear is that ad hocs serving city commissions and boards have produced reports and recommendations for consideration by their full bodies, many of which were approved for your legislative deliberation, without encumbering city staff time and in recognition of open governance practices. While the city's Sunshine Ordinance places City Council ad hoc committees under CA's Brown Act, the Act does not apply to temporary ad hoc advisory committees composed of less than a majority of the body with defined purposes. In our observation of city commissions, we have seen ad hoc committees report out to their full commissions while acting mindfully of any perceived breach of open meeting laws. Other California cities enable their commissions to address responsibilities using ad hoc committees. I appreciate the Counci for bringing forward an ordinance to improve city procedures. However, in effect, what is proposed does not improve but may diminish commissions/boards capabilities “to achieve the high levels of professional service our community expects." Thank you for your deliberations.
William Burg
Location: M__ndo_b
Submitted At: 9:10am 08-30-22
This is the second attempt in a short period to remove the ability of city boards and commissions to create subcommittees. It is an unnecessary step that interferes with city commissions' ability to do work and formulate policy. Without subcommittees, many elements of Planning and Preservation Commission's work simply cannot be performed.
Bruce Pierini
Location:
Submitted At: 8:04am 08-30-22
I was Chair of the Museum and History Commission in the late 1980s/early 1990s and we utilized both Standing and Ad Hoc Committees effectively to gather support for particular initiatives. Please keep democracy and transparency healthy in City politics by voting no on this addition and amendment to the Ordinance Ch. 1.14 to the Sacramento City Code. Boards and Commissions with their Standing and Ad Hoc Committees must continue to be an important relay point between the residents and their Council members. Bruce Pierini Barry F. Boyd
Location:
Submitted At: 6:08pm 08-29-22
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 of 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 (Parking Revisions to Parking Requirements), Measure U Community Advisory Committee (Participatory Budgeting Pilot Program) and, many other “Independent” Sacramento City Boards and Commissions Ad Hoc Committees 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
Commissioner – Planning and Design Commission
Planning and Design Commission Ad Hoc Committee for Revisions to Parking Requirements Agenda Item: eComments for Public Comments-Matters Not on the Agenda Overall Sentiment
Ronnie Miranda
Location:
Submitted At: 6:27am 08-30-22
My name is Ronnie Miranda resident of district 4 I'm very disappointed of the vote you council members did regarding homeless camping in sidewalks. Where can they go since most shelters are full and waiting lists are full. What options are you doing to help.