5PM City Council (Closed Session Begins @ 2:00 p.m.) [Updated 11/14/2022 @ 11:30 a.m.]
Meeting Time: 11-15-22 17:00
eComments Report
Meetings Meeting
Time
Agenda
Items
Comments Support Oppose Neutral
5PM City Council (Closed Session Begins
@ 2:00 p.m.) [Updated 11/14/2022 @
11:30 a.m.]
11-15-22
17:00
59 16 5 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 @ 2:00 p.m.) [Updated 11/14/2022 @ 11:30 a.m.] 11-15-22 17:00
Agenda Name Comments Support Oppose Neutral
13. Surplus Property Donation to the Downtown Sacramento Partnership File ID: 2022-01888
1 1 0 0
14. Contract Supplement No. 5: Ford Police Interceptor Utility Vehicles [Published for 10-Day Review 11/03/2022] File ID: 2022-01893 1 0 1 0
31. Vacation of a Portion of 4th Avenue Public Right of Way and Utility Easement, Proceeding No. VAC22-0009 (Noticed 10/31/2022 & 11/07/2022) File ID: 2022-01784
3 0 3 0
35. Transportation Priorities Plan Initial Prioritization File ID: 2022-01804 2 2 0 0 Public Comments-Matters Not on the Agenda 9 2 6 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 13. Surplus Property Donation to the Downtown Sacramento Partnership File ID: 2022-01888 Overall Sentiment
Michael Ault
Location:
Submitted At: 4:57pm 11-14-22
Dear Mayor, Councilmembers, and city staff:
I am writing on behalf of the Downtown Sacramento Partnership and the 66 blocks we represent in the downtown core to express our gratitude to the Council and the City Department of Public Works for the donation of surplus property including trash trailers and a work truck to the Downtown Partnership. As a partner to the business owners, property owners, residents, and visitors in Downtown Sacramento, the Downtown Partnership strives to maintain a high standard of cleanliness and safety in our public spaces. The donation of five carrier trash trailers and a work truck will expand our team’s capacity and ability to contribute to the cleanliness and beautification of our urban core. Downtown Sacramento Partnership applauds this council for providing support to our organization’s mission to build value downtown, and remains committed to partnering with the city to enhance our downtown community. Thank you.
Agenda Item: eComments for 14. Contract Supplement No. 5: Ford Police Interceptor Utility Vehicles [Published for 10-Day Review 11/03/2022] File ID: 2022-01893
Overall Sentiment
Anne Hilborn
Location:
Submitted At: 1:29pm 11-14-22
I oppose wasting our tax dollars on unnecessary equipment, especially equipment that poses a threat to the public. Police chases escalate relatively minor situations and turn them deadly. In 2020 police chases in CA killed 470 people of which ~180 were bystanders or passengers. It is another example of police escalating situations and causing completely unnecessary injury and death to the public. Even if you don't care about the safety of the public and believe that police safety is paramount, vehicle crashes are a leading cause of death to law enforcement officers themselves.
This quote is from the FBI
https://leb.fbi.gov/bulletin-highlights/additional-highlights/crime-data-law-enforcement-officers-killed-in-the-line-of- duty-statistics-for-2021
"According to statistics reported to the FBI, 129 law enforcement officers were killed in line-of-duty incidents in 2021. Of these, 73 died as a result of felonious acts and 56 in accidents. Fifty-six law enforcement officers were killed accidentally while performing their duties in 2021, an increase of 10 when compared with the 46 officers in 2020. Most (32 officers) died in motor vehicle crashes. " Police chases put officers and the public in danger and our tax money should not be spent on these extremely fast vehicles that encourage officers to drive dangerously in ways that are deadly to the public and themselves.
Agenda Item: eComments for 31. Vacation of a Portion of 4th Avenue Public Right of Way and Utility Easement, Proceeding No.
VAC22-0009 (Noticed 10/31/2022 & 11/07/2022) File ID: 2022-01784 Overall Sentiment
Becky Cale
Location:
Submitted At: 9:15pm 11-14-22
We live at 420 4th Avenue, directly adjacent to the south of the portion of the 4th Avenue public right of way and utility easement proposed for vacation. After reviewing the staff report and associated map, we have several concerns and urge the City Council to oppose this vacation proposal.
To our knowledge, an “Adjoining Property Contact Form,” which is noted on the City of Sacramento website as a requirement in the vacation application package, was not provided to us as an opportunity to formally state our opinion during the application process, so we are stating our strong opposition now.
Our property is a landmark on the Sacramento Register of Historic and Cultural Resources, and it includes a circa 1860 farmhouse and several large, heritage trees. Just as neighbors utilize 4th Avenue adjacent to their homes for vehicle and emergency service access, we have used the undeveloped portion of the 4th Avenue public right of way for vehicle access to our historic property since purchasing it in 2003.
This 4th Avenue public right of way and utility easement was established in 1972. As subsequent residential development surrounded 420 4th Avenue, the 4th Avenue public right of way to the north became the only vehicle access point to the interior of our property, where the historic home and heritage trees are located. This access is exemplified in City Council Resolution No. 87-102, which permitted the previous owners of our property to fence the undeveloped portion of 4th Avenue in 1987, and notes that “a gate must be provided for fire and utility access.
This vacation proposal indicates incredibly narrow and diagonal access (~6 feet) to our property from the unimproved portion of 4th Avenue to the north. Due to existing infrastructure, mature landscaping, and trees, there is no vehicle access to the interior of our property from this proposed entry point, where the homes are set back well over 150’ from the improved portion of 4th Avenue. The staff report does not specify how 420 4th Avenue will maintain emergency service access to the homes on the property, how this proposed access point meets California and Sacramento Fire Code, or whether a site visit was conducted by the Fire Department.
Specific Sacramento Fire Code that come into question include: 503.1.1, 503.2.1, 503.2.8, and 503.4. These codes note specific requirements for fire apparatus access that do not appear to be met for our historic property in this vacation proposal.
In regard to the very large heritage trees, certified arborists have confirmed that the safest way to prune these trees – for both the laborers and the structures – is to bring specialty vehicles into the interior of our property. This vacation proposal would prevent vehicles required for safe pruning from coming into close proximity of these trees, which would put the historic farmhouse, our home, and trees at risk of damage or destruction.
We want to ensure all of the trees and structures on our historic property, including the three protected Valley Oaks located on our shared property line with the 4th Avenue public right of way, remain healthy and unharmed by any current or future proposals involving this undeveloped portion of the 4th Avenue public right of way.
In consideration of public safety and the preservation of a historic landmark, we respectfully request to review a written evaluation that confirms the City Fire Department’s site visit to our property and addresses how the proposed vacation of the 4th Avenue public right of way will meet Sacramento and California Fire Code before this proposal is considered for a vote of the City Council.
We also request that an environmental review be conducted to review and mitigate any potential impacts on this historic resource before any current or future proposals related to the adjacent the 4th Avenue public right of way are considered by the City Council.
The City’s General Plan states the City will protect its historic and cultural resources and its natural environment.
In an effort to protect the historic landmark at 420 4th Avenue, we request the City Council to oppose the vacation of the portion of the 4th Avenue public right of way and utilities easement.
Thank you for your consideration and attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
Becky and Tony Cale
William Burg
Location: M__ndo_b
Submitted At: 5:00pm 11-14-22
The Board of Directors of Preservation Sacramento has strong concerns about vacation of this public right of way, due to its potentially harmful effects on heritage trees immediately adjacent to the property line, and potential effects on a listed historic resource (Hidden House) adjacent to those trees. Analysis of potential effects on historic resources requires a higher level of environmental review. We urge the City Council to vote NO on this item. The Board's letter regarding this matter is attached.
Richard Lyons
Location:
Submitted At: 10:20am 11-12-22
As a 40 year resident of 4th Avenue, I have concerns as to the proposed future resldential development on this easement portion negatively affecting the sustainability of the Heritage building/trees located immediately south of the easement. Such a narrow easement plot for intended residential construction would seem to be incompatible with calls for service by emergency/service vehicles and may well jeopardize the the safety of lives and established properties in the immediate area. It would be best for the already established area's interest, to leave well enough alone as to the current long-standing easement and NOT vacate as proposed.
Agenda Item: eComments for 35. Transportation Priorities Plan Initial Prioritization File ID: 2022-01804 Overall Sentiment
Debra Banks
Location:
Submitted At: 10:33am 11-14-22
SABA respectfully submits this letter of support for the Transportation Priorities Plan. We look forward to council's action committing staff allocation and funding to see the high prioritized projects implemented in a timely manner.
Kate Wilkins
Location:
Submitted At: 8:38am 11-14-22
On behalf of 350 Sacramento, I'm submitting this letter of support for the Transportation Priorities Plan staff recommendations for the project prioritization. We look forward to the next steps in this process, the City's thorough investigation of funding mechanisms so we can get to work on these necessary projects.
Agenda Item: eComments for Public Comments-Matters Not on the Agenda Overall Sentiment
BRENDA MCCULLOCH
Location:
Submitted At: 9:14am 11-15-22
I am writing to you as a long-time Curtis Park resident about the Sierra 2 Green Park, located behind the Sierra Curtis Community Center. It is essential to leave the Sierra 2 Green open to off-leash dogs until after the Parks and Recs Department holds a public community forum where Dogxillary community members can comment and be a part of a collaborative decision-making process, focusing on solutions. The community survey the Parks and Recs Department has suggested should take place prior to changes to Sierra 2 Green are made, not after as is currently planned. The Parks and Recs Department should engage in transparent, public, data-driven, evidence- based shared decision-making before making a change as impactful to a neighborhood as this. The park in its current use is important for the physical and mental health of the community. Sierra 2 Green is easily assessable for those with physical disabilities while Belle Cooledge Park or Truitt Bark are not. In closing, I request that the Dogxillary community members be fully heard before closure to off-leash dogs is completed. I am certain there is a way the Dogxillary community members can work together with the Parks and Rec Department to ensure Sierra 2 Green remains a safe area for neighbors, families, kids, and dogs.
Alexa Gutierrez
Location:
Submitted At: 7:13am 11-15-22
I write to inform you of my support for the residents of Camp Resolution in their effort to utilize the property, their right to exist, and to have self-determination. Camp Resolution’s reclamation of the open city-owned lot at 2225 Colfax was intentional – this lot has a long history of violent evictions, predicated on promises that we now know were already broken, with no follow up to those households who were told they could return to the lot once it was turned into a “safe ground.” Residents living outside across Sacramento deserve better from our city government, an end to violent displacement, and an investment in long term solutions.
The people of Camp Resolution have a story to tell, and as supporters in the community, we want the City and larger community to hear that story.
We oppose the City’s current response of eviction threats, police drive-throughs, and retaliatory signage, as well as any escalations of harassment or enforcement resulting in violent sweeps that may be planned for the future.
The City of Sacramento must listen to its people. Homelessness has nearly doubled in the past three years.
There is no housing, shelters are full, services are deeply inadequate, and the city’s answer continues to be unrelenting harassment and violent displacement through sweeps of the most vulnerable residents of this city – who are the victims of the policy choices that created this humanitarian crisis to begin with.
Former Colfax residents and other unhoused individuals/households have been returning to the lot since it was reclaimed on September 30th – more and more every day. A community is being established – based in cooperation, self respect, and self-determination. Residents are here because they genuinely feel it is the safest option for them right now. Residents are working together to meet basic needs and make decisions, and there is rapidly growing support from the broader community - bringing in necessities like food, water, clothing/bedding, sanitation supplies, harm reduction supplies, and other necessities.
We demand that the city either engage Camp Resolution on their terms, invest in the vital resources to support their needs, or leave them to their self determined survival and resolution strategies that are being supported by them and this community.
Demitri Blizzeard
Location:
Submitted At: 4:20am 11-15-22
My name is Demitri Blizzeard I am not a resident but I have become a friend of the camp over the past few weeks…
I’ve been acquainted with this camp for a short while but in the short time I’ve been around I’ve seen an organized body of individuals who are looking out for the well-being of their neighbors. They have meetings, they have finances, and they each have an important role that they play in order to grow each other and the camp. The other night I attended one of their events and was truly inspired by the performances and speeches that were given: A woman told about her struggle through homelessness and raising children as a single mother and another man played skillfully the best Accordian playing I’ve ever heard - Live. And (no offense) I bet you could never get to that level. But these are the people you are forcing out of a place they did not just find but a place they’ve lived long enough to create a home and build a family?
The issues this body has are not things that you can find the answer to in books. These are things you aren’t taught when you are a boy or girl growing up in America. And just because everyone wants to live the American dream??? Tell me how are you or I are any different from them? In one way that I see is honesty. They have no reason to lie to each other, the public, or their enemies so I promise you today what you have heard is the truth and what you will hear from here on out will also be that same truth.
Now I am a Christian and I believe in God. I believe the same God created you and me is the same God that created the residents of this camp. Now he provides for all of us the same and I believe that if their be any believers on this panel tonight that you know that God would want you to help and love one another and not have one trying to get over on the other for their own benefit.
Courtney Poole
Location:
Submitted At: 9:29pm 11-14-22
I am writing to urge you to reconsider the pending sweep of Camp Resolution. As one of the well-put signs states at community, residents of the camp are not service resistant, services are nonexistent. During the cold nights that we are experiencing here in Sacramento, there is no doubt that this sweep will negatively impact our neighbors who are living there. As you all know, community develops where people have opportunity to care for and support each other, and Camp Resolution is that place. These city residents are requesting that City Council and the Mayor come out and meet with them instead of ignoring their requests and concerns. Please do this instead of sending law enforcement out. Sweeping and displacing our most vulnerable community members is not a solution for the hosuing crisis. More affordable, permanent, and supportive housing is what we need.
Please allow the residents of Camp Resolution the right to rest, be safe, and live with dignity. Community is the protective factor that we all need and deserve, and Camp Resolution is that place.
Cathleen Williams
Location:
Submitted At: 2:40pm 11-14-22
I oppose the eradication of the camp resolution site. We cannot arrest our way or destroy our way out of homelessness. People deserve security stability and safety throughout the city.
Natalie Lopez
Location:
Submitted At: 2:31pm 11-14-22
How can the city heartlessly sanction and support sweeping homeless residents from location to location, destroy their survival gear, and retraumatize them over and over again with police brutality when there are no shelter beds available and no services to help people get off the streets? How can they label people "service resistant" when there are no services? (FYI a bus pass is not adequate services!!!!) Affordable housing now! The housing crisis has gone on long enough!
If you want to know how to help people then talk to them! Meet with them! Find out what you can do to help them.
Don't just try and hide them, like it is shameful to be poor in one of the richest states! It should be shameful to be a rich state with people sleeping on the streets in the cold. For shame City of Sacramento! Do better!!! I am writing to inform you of my support for the residents of Camp Resolution in their effort to utilize the property, their right to exist, and to have self-determination. Camp Resolution’s reclamation of the open city-owned lot at 2225 Colfax was intentional – this lot has a long history of violent evictions, predicated on promises that we now know were already broken, with no follow up to those households who were told they could return to the lot once it was turned into a “safe ground.” Residents living outside across Sacramento deserve better from our city government, an end to violent displacement, and an investment in long term solutions.
Nick Montoya
Location:
Submitted At: 2:23pm 11-14-22
I am writing to inform you of my support for the residents of Camp Resolution in their effort to utilize the property, their right to exist, and to have self-determination. Camp Resolution’s reclamation of the open city-owned lot at 2225 Colfax was intentional – this lot has a long history of violent evictions, predicated on promises that we now know were already broken, with no follow up to those households who were told they could return to the lot once it was turned into a “safe ground.” Residents living outside across Sacramento deserve better from our city government, an end to violent displacement, and an investment in long term solutions.
The people of Camp Resolution have a story to tell, and as supporters in the community, we want the City and larger community to hear that story.
We oppose the City’s current response of eviction threats, police drive-throughs, and retaliatory signage, as well as any escalations of harassment or enforcement resulting in violent sweeps that may be planned for the future.
The City of Sacramento must listen to its people. Homelessness has nearly doubled in the past three years.
There is no housing, shelters are full, services are deeply inadequate, and the city’s answer continues to be unrelenting harassment and violent displacement through sweeps of the most vulnerable residents of this city – who are the victims of the policy choices that created this humanitarian crisis to begin with.
Former Colfax residents and other unhoused individuals/households have been returning to the lot since it was reclaimed on September 30th – more and more every day. A community is being established – based in cooperation, self respect, and self-determination. Residents are here because they genuinely feel it is the safest option for them right now. Residents are working together to meet basic needs and make decisions, and there is rapidly growing support from the broader community - bringing in necessities like food, water, clothing/bedding, sanitation supplies, harm reduction supplies, and other necessities.
We demand that the city either engage Camp Resolution on their terms, invest in the vital resources to support their needs, or leave them to their self determined survival and resolution strategies that are being supported by them and this community.
For resolution,
N. Montoya
Molly Chlebnikow
Location:
Submitted At: 2:05pm 11-14-22
Dear Sac City Council, I am writing in support of the off agenda item Camp Resolution and opposed to the City sweeping Camp Resolution. The City has made so many promises to address homelessness yet continues to do so little other then to inact punitive and harmful responses to our unhoused neighbors. The high cost of housing and the cost of living added with too many low paying jobs is forcing people into homelessness. It is the role of City council to inact policies to support people and families in times of need, not to punish and harm them further.
Please work with the residents of Camp Resolution instead of hiding behind the police and further criminalizing and harming our unhoused neighbors. Thank you
Moiz Mir
Location:
Submitted At: 7:58pm 11-11-22
Please see attached correspondence to all members of the Sacramento City Council and the Sacramento City Manager. I am following up on my initial communication on November 4, 2022, also attached.
I am writing this correspondence to express my concern about the course of actions being taken by the City of Sacramento with regards to Camp Resolution. The residents of Camp Resolution have invited the Sacramento City Mayor and City Manager to speak with them as human beings and as constituents, not just as obstacles to be swept away and forcibly evicted and removed, again. The City has already broken its word, having originally swept the Colfax Y ard site while telling people that it would become a Safe Parking resource for them, to then only end up abandoning this project. If the City is truly interested, even invested in, the safety and wellbeing of its unhoused residents as it claims to be, every effort should be taken to productively engage with them in good faith especially given their open invitation for dialogue.
The Sacramento community at large has taken notice of the City’s original intent to perform a sweep on November 11, 2022, Veteran’s Day, of Camp Resolution which would impact unhoused residents, including veterans. Postponing the date to November 16, 2022 does not alleviate any of the very real concerns for safety of our unhoused neighbors that Sacramentans feel. It has been well documented at the local level here in the City of Sacramento, including by the Sacramento Bee, that sweeps performed by the City result in preventable deaths.
The October 2021 sweeps in anticipation of the Iron Man race left unhoused people without any shelter or protection right before a historic climate crisis, Sacramento’s highest rainfall day ever recorded on October 24, 2021, all for an event that had to be called off because of how dangerous the conditions outside became.
As we head into another winter one year later, I implore you to reconsider the City’s approach and planned course of action for Camp Resolution. Please prioritize the safety and wellbeing of Camp Resolution’s residents, stop the sweep planned for November 16, 2022, and speak with them on pursuing a better solution.
In the attached correspondence I respond to the reasons raised by Assistant City Manager Mario Lara in a letter on October 20, 2022 about purported "ongoing health and safety issues involving 2225 Colfax St", the site Camp Resolution resides on. I discuss both the matters of safety and compliance, and the publicly available evidence that I believe renders the Assistant City Manager's statement, and the City's current course of action, inadequate.
With care for all residents who call the City of Sacramento home, Moiz Mir
909 12th Street, Ste 110 Sacramento, CA 95814 www.sacbike.org
November 11, 2022 Dear Mayor Steinberg and City Council Members, Sacramento Area Bicycle Advocates (SABA) heartily support the Transportation Priorities Plan (TPP) staff recommendations for the prioritization of the 700 projects awaiting funding and implementation. Investing in the projects deemed highest priority will help many in the Sacramento community get around town more easily and safely every day. SABA’s mission is to make it safe and convenient for more Sacramentans to use their bicycle for short trips around town, and by doing so, we’re helping to make the region become a cleaner, healthier, happier place to live and work. Our goals are in alignment with the TPP effort, and we agree that the outcome of the prioritization reflects Sacramento values for transportation investment because it: • Prioritizes those with the greatest needs by first investing in Sacramento’s communities that have historically been overlooked. These communities lack basic transportation infrastructure like sidewalks, streetlights, trees and more. • Addresses transportation deaths and serious injuries by prioritizing projects on Sacramento’s 10 high injury corridors; those with the highest number of fatal and severe crashes. These happen to be in Sacramento’s under-resourced communities. • Fixes our most broken streets by prioritizing those streets with the worst conditions and that serve the most people. • Makes it easier to get to where people need to go by prioritizing projects near jobs, schools and parks. Finally, by prioritizing investments in bicycling, walking, and transit use, these projects help to clear our air and make us healthier. This is the first time transportation investment will be led by community values based on broad listening and engagement. We applaud the City’s attention to issues of equity and believe that equity, safety and addressing air quality all go hand in hand and can move us towards meeting our climate goals. In addition to the TPP, the other relevant planning document, the Bicycle Master Plan, is outdated and needs to be revisited considering the TPP and the important General Plan and Climate Action Plan. These overarching plans should provide a larger vision and guidance for the projects prioritized in the TPP. With such limited transportation funding, it’s essential that the City embrace a forward thinking approach to funding mechanisms. We ask that you prioritize staffing and budget resources to secure the needed funding to implement the highest priority projects. The impact they could have on the City’s climate and safety goals is irrefutable. SABA encourages you to approve staff’s recommendation. Sincerely, Debra Banks Executive Director, Sacramento Area Bicycle Advocates cc: Howard Chan, City Manager Jennifer Venema, City Climate Action Lead
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
November 14, 2022
RE: Project VAC22-0009 (Vacation of a Portion of 4th Avenue Public Right of Way and Utility Easement)
Dear Mayor Steinberg and members of the Sacramento City Council,
The Board of Directors of Preservation Sacramento wishes to express our strong concerns regarding the vacation of the 4th Avenue public right-of-way and utility easement proposed. The property adjacent to the right-of-way, the C.G. Hidden Farmhouse, is listed in the Sacramento Register as a landmark, and its adjacent landscape and trees make up the setting of the property. This land has been a city easement since 1972, and the proposed vacation of easement will block access to the landmark building and its landscaping by tree maintenance vehicles or emergency vehicles. Subsequent development on the site may result in damage (direct or indirect) to the trees and adjacent historic brick structure, which is fragile due to its age and materials.
To ensure this historic resource within our city is preserved for generations to come, we highly recommend that the City Council vote in opposition to abandonment at this time, as the project has the potential to affect a historic resource and requires a higher level of environmental review. The proposal and subsequent associated project should not return to Council until environmental review and mitigation measures are included to ensure access to the site by emergency and maintenance vehicles.
Sincerely,
William Burg
President, Preservation Sacramento Board of Directors
Moiz Mir
November 10, 2022
Sacramento City Council and City ManagerCity of Sacramento915 I StSacramento, CA 95814 To the Sacramento City Council and City Manager:
I am writing this correspondence to express my concernabout the course ofactions being taken by the City of Sacramento with regards to Camp Resolution, and tofollow up on an initial communication I sent to all members of the City Council and the CityManager on November 4, 2022. In my initial communication, I submitted a California PublicRecords Act request, notified the City that there is an ongoing independent effort to expand thepublic understanding about the site Camp Resolution resides on at 2225 Colfax Street (ColfaxYard), and requested that the City pause further actions beyond the scope of sharing or postinginformation. While waiting for the release of public records per my request, I have continued toreview existing public information that I now seek to make you and the public aware of prior toany attempted escalated action or forced removal by the City on Camp Resolution.
On October 20, 2022, Assistant City Manager Mario Larawrote a letterstating:“The current occupation taking place at 2225 Colfax St. is bothunsafeandout ofcompliancewith the variance issued by the Central Valley Regional Water QualityControl Board…For those reasons, the City cannotallowcamping on this site. Stafffrom the City’s Department of Community Response visited the site on Oct. 6 and 7,2022, to provide outreach andoffer available services.” Based on the public materials I have reviewed, Ifind this statement to beinadequate.I am aware of both theLand Use Covenant(LUC)between the City of Sacramentoand the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board established in 2017, and the latervariance the City of Sacramento received- that theCitycan only utilize the site to host up to 50vehicles for occupancy for “Safe Parking”, but not for alternate dwellings. Following, I refer topublic information that refutes the statement made by Assistant City Manager Mario Lara.
November 10, 2022. Page1
The Matter of Safety:1. The Colfax Yard site provides safetyResiding on the Colfax Yard site provides Camp Resolutionand its residents a way tomitigate day-to-day safety risks including violence, malnutrition, cold/heat exposure, generalstress, and more that they would otherwise be subject to outside the site. Having a known,stable location to prevent geographic displacement, community fragmentation, and loss hasrepeatedly beencitedas a factor that improves healthoutcomes,and allows for serviceproviders and advocates to be able to assist in supporting the wellbeing and safety of unhousedresidents.
2. The Colfax Yard site does not pose unique health and safety concernsCited within the variance itself, “Stantec Consulting Services Inc. (Stantec) on behalf ofthe City” submitted compelling sampling data and lab results in December 2021 that convincedthe Water Board to allow the variance. Notably, the following excerpts are especially compelling:“The laboratory detected between 0.80 and 1.2 micrograms per cubic meter ( μ g/m 3 ) ofbenzene… The laboratorydid not detect TCE and PCEin the outdoor air samples…Stantec concluded thatthe presence of benzeneinambient air isconsistent withstatewide conditions unrelated to subsurface soil vapor… Stantec cited theCalifornia Air Resources Board’s statewide 90th percentile benzene concentrationbetween 2015 and 2020 ranged from 1.05 to 1.69 μ g/m 3 .”
In other words, the presence of“potentially hazardousvapors”on the Colfax Yard site areeithernon-existentin the cases of TCE and PCE, orin the case of benzene present at a rateconsistent with ambient air conditions anywhere else.Even the Water Board states:“Stantec collected outdoor air samples and concluded that the proposed property usedoes not present a human health or safety risk.CentralValley Water Board staffconcurredthat subsurface benzene, PCE, and TCEdonot pose a risk to humanhealth or safetyunder the conditions and terms listedin the LUC and this variance”
3. People have the agency to choose to make decisions on the risks that affect themEven if there are health risks associated with entering the Colfax Yard site, contrary tothe most recent evidence collected on behalf of the City, making and acting on decisions aboutthis potential personal risk is not a choice by the City but rather a personal choice.
November 10, 2022. Page2
People are rightfully entrusted to balance and make choices about the risks we face inSacramento every day. The decision to ride a bicycle on streets within the City for example is anaction that puts residents at direct risk of exposure to vehicular exhaust, arguably at levelshigher than evidence shows is present at Colfax Yard.
The Matter of Compliance:1. Camp Resolution is not operating under the authority of the City of SacramentoCamp Resolution is not a City-sanctioned operation, thus it is not a City-sanctioned landuse of the Colfax Yard site. Camp Resolution is made up of a group of individuals makingchoices to preserve their own safety and wellbeing. The LUC and the variance to it areagreements between the City of Sacramento and the Central Valley Regional Water QualityControl Board regarding Colfax Yard, they are notagreements that involve the actions ofindividual residents nor do they spell out a requirement compelling the City to forciblyremove “trespassers”. While a complaint has been madeto the Water Board for concern ofviolating the variance, this does not mean that the existence of Camp Resolution constitutes theCity’s violation or noncompliance with the variance. The City hasalready posted signageascommunicated with the Water Board in order to comply with the variance and indicate the City’sposition as being uninvolved with and not sanctioning Camp Resolution’s land use of the ColfaxYard. To the extent of publicly shared information, the City is not compelled to act beyond this.
2. Attempts to force removal of Camp Resolution are not compliant with Martin v BoiseThe City has yet to provide the public a reasonable justification for the forced removal ofCamp Resolution, or provide its residents any substantive alternative. It is an active, escalatedchoice by the City to pursue forced removal on November 16th, and doing so in this manner isinconsistent with Martin v Boise.In the letter quoted on page 1, Assistant City Manager Mario Lara claims that theDepartment of Community Response sought to “offer available services”. If the City attempted tooffer “available services”, the residents of Camp Resolution deserve evidence detailing theexact “services” that were offered and proof that they are viable alternatives. Bus passes or IDvouchers do not constitute services that are viable alternatives to a place to reside.
3. The LUC and variance to it are subject to modification if new information is presentedDespite the City’s choice to abandon the Safe Parking on Colfax Yard due to concernsthat it is cost prohibitive, a Safe Parking arrangement is not the only land use that can be November 10, 2022. Page3
pursued. The City requested itsnow receivedvariance to the LUC, specifically pursuing a SafeParking land use arrangement onOctober 14, 2021.This request was made prior to thesampling, lab review, and addendum analysis conducted by Stantec on the City’s behalf, whichwas submitted on December 7, 2021.Public recordsreveal (page 4)that on that same day ofDecember 7, 2021, in an email from Neil Doran, Principal Geologist of Stantec to staff of boththe Water Board and the City of Sacramento, Neil submits Stantec’s report presenting the datawith the following note:“Overall very good news; no detections of PCE/TCEor degradation products, and onlylow detections of benzene which appear to be background, unrelated to subsurfaceconditions”Following this “very good news” about the status of potentially hazardous vapors (that they arenotably not present beyond ambient conditions) on the Colfax Yard site, the City ofSacramento could have, and still can choose to pursue further variance from the WaterBoard to the LUCto allow alternate dwellings beyondjust Safe Parking.Even further, public records show thathistorical concernsabout the presence ofpotentially hazardous vapors in the area surrounding the Colfax Yard site primarily exclude theactual site itself from potential risks.Maps on filewith the Water Board submitted byKennedy/Jenks Consultants (attachments 4 and 5) as well as the Sacramento Housing andRedevelopment Agency (SHRA) (attachment 7) in 2010show that risks associated withhazardous vapors were found to be sourced from an origin location South of Arden Way - at2147 Barstow Street, while the Colfax Yard site is North of Arden Way. Notably, the Colfax Yardsite is not even includedin the benzene plume pathon SHRA’s GIS assessment map onMarch 25, 2010. The Colfax Yard site is similarly excluded from both soil gas cancer risk mapssubmitted by Kennedy/Jenks Consultants.
There would seem to be compelling evidence, especially given the recent Stantecreport in 2021 conducted on behalf of the City, that the Colfax Yard is a safe location.While the existing variance states “supporting data were only used to evaluate the need for SafeParking on the Site with regards to vehicles and do not adequately substantiate support for anyalternate dwellings and/or structures outside of the circumstances stated”, there is no reasonnot to use the existing data to evaluate other needs especially given how promising a resultabout safety the data revealed, nor is there reason to discontinue additional efforts to collectdata.
November 10, 2022. Page4
Engaging in good faithThe residents of Camp Resolution have invited theSacramento City Mayor andCity Manager to speak with them as human beingsandas constituents, not just as obstaclesto be swept away and forcibly evicted and removed, again. The City has already broken itsword, having originally swept the Colfax Yard site while telling people that it would become aSafe Parking resource for them, to then only end up abandoning this project.If the City is trulyinterested, even invested in, the safety and wellbeing of its unhoused residentsas itclaims to be, every effort should be taken to productivelyengage with them in good faithespecially given their open invitation for dialogue.As I notified the City in my previous November 4, 2022 correspondence, there is anindependent effort to expand the public understanding about the situation. In addition tocontinuing to review existing public records and waiting for the release of more records per mypending California Public Records Act request, I have personally been in correspondence withfaculty at California State University, Sacramento related to the Environmental Studies andBiological Sciences departments, and am personally in coordination withan effort to conductadditional sampling on the site.The Sacramento community at large has taken notice of the City’soriginal intent toperform a sweep on November 11, 2022, Veteran’s Day,of Camp Resolution which wouldimpact unhoused residents, including veterans. Postponingthe date to November 16, 2022does not alleviate any of the very real concerns for safety of our unhoused neighbors thatSacramentans feel. It has been well documented at the local level here in the City ofSacramento, including by the Sacramento Bee, thatsweeps performed by the City result inpreventable deaths. The October 2021 sweeps in anticipationof the Iron Man race leftunhoused people without any shelter or protection right before a historic climate crisis,Sacramento’s highest rainfall day ever recorded on October 24, 2021, all for an event that hadto be called off because ofhow dangerous the conditionsoutside became.
As we head into another winter one year later, Iimplore you to reconsider theCity’s approach and planned course of action for Camp Resolution. Please prioritize thesafety and wellbeing of Camp Resolution’s residents, stop the sweep planned forNovember 16, 2022, and speak with them on pursuing a better solution.
With care for all residents who call the City of Sacramento home,Moiz Mir November 10, 2022. Page5
Moiz Mir
November 4, 2022
Howard ChanCity ManagerCity of Sacramento915 I StSacramento, CA 95814 Dear City Manager or whomever it may concern:
I am submitting this letter to make two requests.First, Under the California Public Records Act § 6250etseq., I am requestinganopportunity to inspect or obtain digital copies of all public records held by the City ofSacramento related to the following Capital Improvement Project: The Colfax Maintenance YardToxic Cleanup Recertification Project (C13001800). In particular, any records containinginformation regarding the status, nature, or description of toxins and scientific sampling done onor adjacent to the Colfax Yard site are of primary interest. Also of interest are any recordsrelating to the establishment of a parking lot on the site, and any record related to the pouring ofconcrete and/or application of any sealant, or the lack thereof, to any concrete on the site.
If there are any fees for searching or copying these records, please inform me if the costwill exceed $25. However, I would also like to request a waiver of all fees in thatthe disclosureof the requested information is in the public interest and will contribute significantly tothe public’s understanding of the following activities by the City of Sacramento:theproposed and then abandoned plan for a safeground location at the Colfax Yard site, the postingof a No Trespassing notice on the site referring to the State Water Resources Control BoardGeoTracker, the posting of an Attention to Vacate notice, and the validity of justification for andthe intention to remove any persons and/or property from the Colfax Yard site. This informationis not being sought for commercial purposes.
The California Public Records Act requires a response within ten business days. Ifaccess to the records I am requesting will take longer, please contact me with information aboutwhen I might expect copies or the ability to inspect the requested records.
If you deny any or all of this request, please cite each specific exemption you feeljustifies the refusal to release the information and notify me of the appeal procedures availableto me under the law.
November 4, 2022. 1 of 2
I would like to notify the City of Sacramento thatin addition to the California PublicRecords Act request contained in this correspondence relating to previously conducted activitiesand data collected, there is an ongoing independent effort to expand the public understanding.In addition to reviewing public records of the State Water Resources Control Board, thisindependent effort is in the process of coordinating the conducting of scientific sampling tocollect current data related to the potential accumulation of volatile organic compounds orpotentially hazardous vapors on the site. I am personally in correspondence with faculty atCalifornia State University, Sacramento related to the Environmental Studies and BiologicalSciences departments in coordination with this effort to conduct sampling. This independenteffort is in the public interest and in addition to any information revealed by the precedingCalifornia Public Records Act request, is an effort to contribute significantly to expanding thepublic’s understanding of the City of Sacramento’s activities as outlined precedingly.
Further, beyond the scope of the California PublicRecords Act I am personallymaking the following additional request of the City of Sacramento, Given the lack of understanding of the City of Sacramento’s activities as outlinedprecedingly - namely the validity of justification for the intention to remove any persons and/orproperty from the Colfax Yard site, and given the nature of disruption, number of people thatmay be impacted, potential harm or even indirectly resulted death, and property damage or lossthat may be caused by these City activities moving forwards to residents within the City,Irequest thatany actions beyond the scope of: (a)posting further notice or (b) making availableof records or information, be paused at minimum until the public can be made more aware ofany relevant factors to the situation that the preceding California Public Records Act request,and/or the independent effort, may reveal.
For the purposes of responding to these requests, please reply directly via email that thisrequest reaches you. If that method is not a possible option, please notify me via email if youintend to respond in any way via another method.
Thank you for considering my requests.
With care for all residents who call the City of Sacramento home, Moiz Mir
November 4, 2022. 2 of 2
November 14, 2022
Dear Mayor Steinberg and City Council Members,
350 Sacramento supports the Transportation Priorities Plan staff recommendations for the project prioritization. Investing in the projects deemed highest priority will help our community get around Sacramento more easily and more safely in their everyday lives. 350 Sacramento has long advocated for the City of Sacramento to prioritize active and public transportation.
We appreciate staff’s commitment to gathering community input and we are excited that almost all the top priorities support walking, rolling and biking infrastructure.
The outcome of the prioritization reflects Sacramento values for trans portation investment, because it:
• Will improve air quality by prioritizing investment in walking, bicycling, transit use and supporting electric vehicles.
• Prioritizes those with the greatest needs by first investing in Sacramento’s communities that lack basic transportation infrastructure like sidewalks, street lights, trees and more. Additionally, in recognition of racial equity, it prioritizes investment in areas that are majority Black, Latino, Asian, Pacific Islander, and/or Indigenous.
• Makes it easier to get to where we need to go by prioritizing transportation projects near jobs, schools and parks.
• Addresses transportation deaths and serious injuries by prioritizing transportation projects on Sacramento’s 10 corridors with the highest number of fatal and severe crashes. These also are in Sacramento’s under-resourced communities.
• Fixes our most broken streets by prioritizing those streets with the worst conditions and that serve the most people.
We are particularly excited to see the following projects as high priority projects: the Morrison Creek Bike/Walk Trail, pedestrian and street improvements to El Camino Ave/Del Paso Blvd, and complete street improvements to Northgate Blvd between I-80 and Del Paso Blvd.
This is the first time transportation investment will be led by community values based on broad and equitable listening and engagement.
With such limited transportation funding, it’s essential that the City prioritize its investments. Not all projects can be high priority.
There is great need across Sacramento, but the outcomes of the prioritization process reflect the highest needs in the City and were chosen by Sacramento community members .
I encourage you to approve staff’s recommendation.
Sincerely,
350 Sacramento