CITY COUNCIL
Darrell Steinberg, Mayor
Angelique Ashby, Vice Mayor, District 1
Sean Loloee, District 2
Jeff Harris, District 3
Katie Valenzuela, District 4
Jay Schenirer, District 5
Eric Guerra, Mayor Pro Tem, District 6
Rick Jennings, II, District 7
Mai Vang, District 8
CHARTER OFFICERS
Mindy Cuppy, City Clerk
Susana Alcala Wood, City Attorney
Jorge Oseguera, City Auditor
Howard Chan, City Manager
John Colville, City Treasurer
City Council
Financing Authority
Housing Authority
Public Financing Authority
Redevelopment Agency
Successor Agency
City Hall-Council Chamber
915 I Street, 1st Floor
Published by the Office of the City Clerk
(916) 808-5163
CORRESPONDENCE
Description of Attached: Correspondence received after publishing the Agenda.
For the Meeting of: Tuesday, November 15, 2022, at 5:00 p.m.
Agenda Item: Public Comments-Matters Not on the Agenda
From: Moiz Mir <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2022 9:10 PM
To: Sean Loloee <[email protected]>; Angelique Ashby <[email protected]>; Jeff S. Harris <[email protected]>; Katie Valenzuela (City) <[email protected]>; Eric Guerra <[email protected]>; Rick Jennings <[email protected]>; District8 <[email protected]>; Jay Schenirer <[email protected]>; Darrell Steinberg <[email protected]>; Howard Chan <[email protected]>
Cc: Amy Williams <[email protected]>; Nicole Cuellar <[email protected]> Subject: Fwd: Public Records + Personal Request Regarding 2225 Colfax Street
Hello,
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 forwarded below.
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 Yard 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 | he, him pronouns
(pronounced MOYZ MEER)
[email protected]
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Moiz Mir <[email protected]>
Date: Fri, Nov 4, 2022 at 3:02 PM
Subject: Public Records + Personal Request Regarding 2225 Colfax Street To: <[email protected]>
Cc: <[email protected]>, Nicole Cuellar <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>
Hello,
Please see attached correspondence to City Manager Howard Chan, or whomever it may concern. The correspondence contains a California Public Records Act request, as well as a personal operational request regarding City of Sacramento activities. The site which the requests are regarding is located in City Council District 2.
Thank you,
Moiz Mir | he, him pronouns
(pronounced MOYZ MEER)
[email protected]
Moiz Mir909 12th Street, Suite 116Sacramento, CA 95814
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 [email protected]
November 4, 2022. 2 of 2
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