I oppose any temporary shelter project that would be subsidized by federal SSI/SSDI dollars. If someone is paying 1/3 of their income on rent, that tenant deserves the rights, protections and freedoms that come with such a contract. We know that these people will be subject to curfews and searches and other unreasonable rules, and could be kicked out at any moment on the whim of the underpaid and underqualified staff. It is wrong to generate income off of people who have absolutely no rights and are treated like prisoners despite committing no crime.
Am I also reading correctly that the income generated by this model would be used toward encampment sweeps?
Think about that. Redirecting money intended to bring safety and stability to disabled people and seniors, being rerouted toward police enforcement of anti-camping laws. SSDI money will be used to crush people's wheelchairs. That is what that means. Shameful.
Mayor Kevin McCarty and the Sacramento City Council
City Hall
915 I St.
Sacramento, CA 95814
As the Executive Director of the Union Gospel Mission on Bannon Street, and a pastor in our city for 22 years, I am opposed to the idea of the proposed 'micro-community' directly across the road from our campus.
We already struggle to navigate the homeless who camp outside of our campus and who are not actually seeking our help. I believe this idea will only intensify our issues and fail to truly deal with the homeless issue at its source. Whilst I believe the intention of the idea is no doubt intended for good I believe it is ill-advised and will not help in the long-term.
It would have been useful to have had consultation on this proposal with as an agency directly impacted by this plan. I am disappointed that there has been none even although our campus is accessible 24 hours a day. I am more than happy to sit down with those proposing this to discuss better solutions to this pressing social issue.
There are no quick fixes nor easy answers to the problem we face in our city. What we do not need is ill-advised or unwise projects that do not truly present long term and beneficial solutions. We at Union Gospel Mission deal daily with the mental, physical, spiritual and economic issues that mark the homeless people of our city. We know them reasonably well in terms of behavior. We compassionately and definitively desire to be an ongoing part of the solution as an agency who does know how to get folks off the street and back into housing and normal life.
I strongly urge the City Council to do wider consultation and not to proceed with this present idea.
Yours sincerely and respectfully submitted
Pastor Robert Briggs BD, ThM
Executive Director, UGM
Every neighborhood has schools, children, and homes that are being impacted by the unhoused right now. Creating safe camping or parking sites anywhere and everywhere is desperately needed in the short term. Safer areas have security, trash disposal, and as much help as possible. Until permanent low to no income housing is built, it's either shove them around aimlessly with no oversight or control, or provide some semblance of structure and safety for everyone with safe alternatives.
So, I support the cities efforts to solve the problem. If you are opposed, what's your specific solution? What realistic neighborhood has the magical qualitities of no children, schools, houses, or businesses that would meet your criteria? And how is having completely unsupervised desperate people going anywhere and then being pushed somewhere else helping anyone?
I strongly oppose the City’s proposal to establish a “micro-community” tent site for up to 120 unhoused individuals at Bannon Street and Sequoia Pacific Boulevard, behind the Greyhound Bus Station.
The River District already carries more than its fair share of Sacramento’s shelter and service infrastructure—over 526 publicly funded shelter beds within just 1.25 square miles. We host Union Gospel Mission, Loaves & Fishes, and multiple other providers. Adding yet another large-scale site here is not fair, not responsible, and not sustainable. It continues to concentrate the City’s challenges in one neighborhood rather than distributing them equitably across all districts.
This site is also incompatible with the future of our city. It sits next to homes and businesses, and steps away from the new May Lee State Office Complex, the planned Kaiser Permanente Medical Center, and the Sacramento Republic FC Soccer Stadium in the Railyards. Billions of dollars in public and private investment depend on a stable and safe environment. A sanctioned tent city in the middle of this redevelopment zone threatens to derail Sacramento’s momentum.
Meanwhile, the largest provider in our area does not connect people with housing and is only open from 6 a.m. to 3 p.m.—leaving our neighborhood without services at night, when safety issues are most severe. Without housing pathways or round-the-clock support, this plan only repeats failed strategies.
The River District is already at a breaking point. We urgently need more enforcement resources, not another facility that draws more unhoused individuals to our neighborhood. Other districts must step up.
For these reasons, I urge Council to reject this proposal and pursue a fair, citywide solution that balances both homelessness response and economic revitalization.
I am deeply concerned about the proposal to build a homeless shelter in our neighborhood on the corner of El Centro and Arena Blvd in North Natomas. There has not been sufficent transparency with the residence nearby with many still unaware. We request written accountability by the City of who will occupy these micro-communities. What criteria will be used in the selection process? Will a thorough psychological evaluation be done on occupants beforehand? Will an extensive look into their background be done; one that looks not only into convictions but past history. Where will these records be housed? We need transparency by the city of the exact measures that WILL be taken to protect current residents. What is the police departments capacity in response if crime increases in this area due to this project? Past micro communities for the unhoused have shown an increase in crime. For example, in Seattle's Licton Springs Village, crime increased 103% within a two city-block radius due to drug use and trespassing. We ask for a list of all other alternative sites and reasons why they were disqualified. There are better suited areas for this project. Due to the lack of transparency so far I oppose. Councilmembers, as a community we are aware of who is advocating for our voices and ask that you do your due diligence in exploring alternative options.
I strongly oppose the motion before Council regarding the additional safe camping and micro-community programs in the River District.
I am both a business owner and a resident of the River District (District 4), and I see firsthand every day how concentrated services have negatively impacted our community. Our district is already home to a disproportionate share of homeless services and encampments, and it is not right that we continue to carry this burden while other districts are not asked to do their fair share. This is not equitable, and it is not sustainable.
We are at a breaking point. The River District urgently needs more enforcement resources to address immediate safety, fire, and public health emergencies. Our businesses and residents are struggling under the daily impacts of unchecked encampments, crime, and unsafe conditions. If resources are limited, they should be directed to where the need is most critical—and right now, that is here.
Equally important, services placed in our district must actually connect people to long-term housing solutions. The largest service provider in our area currently does not provide housing connections, and it is only open from 6 a.m. to 3 p.m. This means there is no support during the evening and nighttime hours—precisely when problems are most severe and when our community is most at risk. Without real housing pathways and round-the-clock support, adding more services here simply recycles the same failures.
More beds in the River District will only serve to attract additional unhoused individuals to our neighborhood, worsening the situation for everyone. Other districts across Sacramento also have significant needs, and it is time for the City to distribute services more equitably. Concentrating them in one neighborhood has proven not to work.
For these reasons, I urge City Council to reject this proposal. Instead, prioritize equitable distribution of services, require that providers include direct housing connections, extend service hours to address critical evening needs, and increase enforcement resources immediately in the River District to address our emergency conditions.
I oppose the proposed tiny home project in North Natomas. While I recognize the importance of addressing homelessness in our city, placing this development in our community is not an appropriate solution.
The Arena & El Centro area does not have the resources or infrastructure to support the needs of unhoused individuals. Job opportunities, medical care, mental health services, and food assistance are limited in this area. Placing people here without adequate support sets them up for failure and risks straining the resources that currently exist for families who already live here.
The proposed site is in close proximity to schools, parks, and family neighborhoods. These are spaces intended for children and families, and bringing this project here raises serious concerns about safety, quality of life, and the long-term impact on the community including property values in which we have invested into the community would dissipate.
Not just thinking about the 40-60 individuals who would be “selected” to live in this development but when type of people who follow, loiter, bring in crime and drugs. It is proven, homeless community after homeless community that crime follows. Why is this site being favored over the children who are already community members of North Natomas?
I urge the council to oppose this proposal and instead identify a location where these individuals can be better supported with access to services, employment, and care—without jeopardizing the stability of family-oriented neighborhoods.
Please dont bring more crime, drugs and everything else that comes with homelessness to our area (Natomas). We are dealing with enough homelessness and the city WONT take action. Our canals are filled with encampment, many of these occupants are under the required age of this new community, so this wont help Natomas's homeless situation, but only make it worse! Handle the problem of current homeless people on our city first!
September 16, 2025
Mayor Kevin McCarty and the Sacramento City Council
City Hall
915 I St.
Sacramento, CA 95814
Subject: Opposition to Proposed Micro-Community at Bannon Street and Sequoia Pacific Boulevard
Dear Mayor McCarty and Sacramento City Council,
We, the undersigned neighboring property and business owners, are writing to express our strong opposition to the City’s proposal to establish a “micro-community” tent site for up to 120 unhoused individuals on the one-acre city-owned parcel southeast of Bannon Street and Sequoia Pacific Boulevard, directly behind the Greyhound Bus Station at 420 Richards Boulevard.
While we acknowledge the pressing need for comprehensive solutions to homelessness, this proposal is not an appropriate or responsible location for such a facility. The River District already bears a disproportionate burden of Sacramento’s shelter and social service infrastructure, with 526 publicly funded shelter beds concentrated within our 1.25 square mile district. Nearby facilities include the Union Gospel Mission, Loaves & Fishes, and multiple other service providers. The addition of another large-scale site here would deepen the overconcentration of services in one neighborhood, rather than promoting an equitable, citywide approach.
This proposed location also raises serious concerns about compatibility with current and future land uses. The site is immediately adjacent to businesses and residences, sits steps away from the new May Lee State Office Complex, and near the future Kaiser Permanente Medical Center and Sacramento Republic FC Soccer Stadium in the Railyards. These are critical investments that require a stable and safe environment to succeed. The introduction of a sanctioned tent site of this size threatens to undermine both private redevelopment momentum and public confidence in the neighborhood’s transformation.
The River District has long shouldered far more than its fair share of Sacramento’s homelessness response. We urge the City to reject this proposal and instead prioritize locating new facilities in other parts of Sacramento that have not absorbed similar levels of shelter capacity. A balanced approach is essential if we are to meet the dual goals of addressing homelessness while also fostering equitable economic development across the city.
For these reasons, we cannot support the proposed micro-community at Bannon Street and Sequoia Pacific Boulevard. We respectfully request that the City pursue alternative locations and solutions that align with both the needs of unhoused individuals and the long-term revitalization of the River District.
Sincerely,
Kirsten Ureno
First Pointe Management Group
2215 Plaza Drive
Rocklin, CA 95765
Mayor Kevin McCarty & City of Sacramento City Council
City Hall Complex
915 I Street
Sacramento, CA 95814
Subject: Opposition to Proposed Micro-Community at Bannon Street and Sequoia Pacific Boulevard
Dear Mayor McCarty and City of Sacramento City Council,
We, the undersigned neighboring property and business owners, are writing to express our strong opposition to the City’s proposal to establish a “micro-community” tent site for up to 120 unhoused individuals on the one-acre city-owned parcel southeast of Bannon Street and Sequoia Pacific Boulevard, directly behind the Greyhound Bus Station at 420 Richards Boulevard.
While we acknowledge the pressing need for comprehensive solutions to homelessness, this proposal is not an appropriate or responsible location for such a facility. The River District already bears a disproportionate burden of Sacramento’s shelter and social service infrastructure, with 526 publicly funded shelter beds concentrated within our 1.25 square mile district. Nearby facilities include the Union Gospel Mission, Loaves & Fishes, and multiple other service providers. The addition of another large-scale site here would deepen the overconcentration of services in one neighborhood, rather than promoting an equitable, citywide approach.
This proposed location also raises serious concerns about compatibility with current and future land uses. The site is immediately adjacent to businesses and residences, sits steps away from the new May Lee State Office Complex, and near the future Kaiser Permanente Medical Center and Sacramento Republic FC Soccer Stadium in the Railyards. These are critical investments that require a stable and safe environment to succeed. The introduction of a sanctioned tent site of this size threatens to undermine both private redevelopment momentum and public confidence in the neighborhood’s transformation.
The River District has long shouldered far more than its fair share of Sacramento’s homelessness response. We urge the City to reject this proposal and instead prioritize locating new facilities in other parts of Sacramento that have not absorbed similar levels of shelter capacity. A balanced approach is essential if we are to meet the dual goals of addressing homelessness while also fostering equitable economic development across the city.
For these reasons, we cannot support the proposed micro-community at Bannon Street and Sequoia Pacific Boulevard. We respectfully request that the City pursue alternative locations and solutions that align with both the needs of unhoused individuals and the long-term revitalization of the River District.
Sincerely,
Gina Albanese
Asset Manager
First Pointe Management Group
Track 281 Apartment Homes
321 Bercut Drive
Sacramento, CA 95811
Dear Members of the Sacramento City Council,
I am writing to express my strenuous opposition to the proposed tiny home community at the corner of Arena Boulevard and El Centro Road in North Natomas. I am citizen of District 1 and I have deep concerns regarding the situation in North Natomas.
While I recognize the critical need to address homelessness in our city, this location is profoundly unsuitable for such a development due to significant risks and existing challenges that would exacerbate problems for both residents and the broader community. I urge you to reject this site and explore alternatives that better align with public safety, sustainability, and effective service delivery to those in need.
First, North Natomas is one of the most flood-prone areas in the nation, situated in a low-lying basin surrounded by rivers and canals. A levee breach could result in flood depths of 10 to 25 feet, endangering lives and property. Natomas has a history of severe flooding risks, ranking among the highest in the U.S. for catastrophic potential. Placing vulnerable individuals, including seniors experiencing homelessness, in this high-risk flood zone is irresponsible and could lead to tragedy during extreme weather events, which have become more frequent.
Additionally, the area is already plagued by traffic congestion, particularly around major arterials like Arena Boulevard and intersections with I-5 and I-80. Introducing a new community here would intensify gridlock, increase commute times, and strain infrastructure that is ill-equipped for additional volume.
This site contributes to urban sprawl in a region that has rapidly expanded without adequate planning for sustainable growth, leading to longer drives, higher emissions, and diminished quality of life. North Natomas was developed as a suburban edge city, but further encroachment risks turning it into an unsustainable extension of the urban core without the necessary amenities.
Concerns about crime are also paramount. While North Natomas currently enjoys relatively lower crime rates compared to other parts of Sacramento, introducing a concentrated population of individuals facing homelessness could strain local resources and potentially elevate incidents of property crime or other issues, as seen in similar developments elsewhere. Residents have invested in this community expecting stability, and this proposal threatens that without clear mitigation strategies.
Finally, the location is isolated from essential support services and medical facilities critical for the target population. The nearest hospitals, such as Sutter Medical Center, Mercy General, and the UC Davis Medical Center are far in proximity thereby making timely access challenging, especially for vulnerable seniors or those without reliable transportation.This leaves residents far from the downtown services and healthcare hubs they may urgently need.
In summary, this proposal disregards the site’s inherent dangers and inadequacies, prioritizing expediency over prudence. I implore this Council to prioritize safer, more accessible locations that truly support those in need while preserving the integrity of North Natomas.
Thank you for considering this urgent and vital matter.
Respectfully,
Ashley S. Hamidi
ashamidi@alumni.ucdavis.edu
I always keep in mind the question, “What if this unhoused person was me or a family member?”
Temporary housing is vital for unhoused people to have the time and energy to become re-housed. Many unhoused are seniors and have disabilities. These homes must be accessible to seniors and disabled individuals. There must be electricity, water, heat and air conditioning. There must be other social and medical support systems in place to help these individuals gain permanent, appropriate, and safe housing. These support systems must be nearby or easily accessible by local transit.
I am a longtime resident of District 4 and I’m deeply concerned about the ongoing safety and sanitation issues surrounding McKinley Park. Many neighbors have experienced repeated incidents of unlawful behavior, including overnight camping, theft, vandalism, and the accumulation of hazardous waste such as needles, trash, and human waste. These activities not only degrade our public spaces but also jeopardize the well-being of families, children, and park visitors. I strongly support the implementation of 24-hour patrols in city parks to deter illegal activity and restore a sense of safety and stewardship in our neighborhoods. Our community is ready to collaborate on solutions that protect both residents and vulnerable populations while preserving the integrity of our parks.
Subject: Opposition to Proposed Micro-Community at Bannon Street and Sequoia Pacific Boulevard
Dear Council,
We, the undersigned neighboring property and business owners, are writing to express our strong opposition to the City’s proposal to establish a “micro-community” tent site for up to 120 unhoused individuals on the one-acre city-owned parcel southeast of Bannon Street and Sequoia Pacific Boulevard, directly behind the Greyhound Bus Station at 420 Richards Boulevard.
While we acknowledge the pressing need for comprehensive solutions to homelessness, this proposal is not an appropriate or responsible location for such a facility. The River District already bears a disproportionate burden of Sacramento’s shelter and social service infrastructure, with 526 publicly funded shelter beds concentrated within our 1.25 square mile district. Nearby facilities include the Union Gospel Mission, Loaves & Fishes, and multiple other service providers. The addition of another large-scale site here would deepen the overconcentration of services in one neighborhood, rather than promoting an equitable, citywide approach.
This proposed location also raises serious concerns about compatibility with current and future land uses. The site is immediately adjacent to businesses and residences, sits steps away from the new May Lee State Office Complex, and near the future Kaiser Permanente Medical Center and Sacramento Republic FC Soccer Stadium in the Railyards. These are critical investments that require a stable and safe environment to succeed. The introduction of a sanctioned tent site of this size threatens to undermine both private redevelopment momentum and public confidence in the neighborhood’s transformation.
The River District has long shouldered far more than its fair share of Sacramento’s homelessness response. We urge the City to reject this proposal and instead prioritize locating new facilities in other parts of Sacramento that have not absorbed similar levels of shelter capacity. A balanced approach is essential if we are to meet the dual goals of addressing homelessness while also fostering equitable economic development across the city.
For these reasons, we cannot support the proposed micro-community at Bannon Street and Sequoia Pacific Boulevard. We respectfully request that the City pursue alternative locations and solutions that align with both the needs of unhoused individuals and the long-term revitalization of the River District.
Sincerely,
Priscilla
Track 281
321 Bercut Drive
I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed plan to construct a homeless shelter directly behind my residence. While I understand the need to address homelessness, I have serious concerns about the potential negative impacts this development would have on our neighborhood, particularly regarding safety, crime, and quality of life.
First and foremost, the proximity of the proposed shelter to our homes raises significant safety concerns for our children. Our neighborhood is a family-oriented community where children play freely in backyards and nearby streets. Introducing a shelter could increase risks, as it may attract transient populations or individuals with unaddressed mental health or substance abuse issues, potentially leading to unpredictable behavior. The safety of our children must be prioritized, and this project threatens the secure environment we have worked hard to maintain.
Additionally, there is a well-documented correlation between homeless shelters and increased crime rates in surrounding areas. Studies and reports from other communities with similar facilities often note rises in theft, vandalism, and other disturbances. Our neighborhood is currently a peaceful and low-crime area, and we fear that the shelter could disrupt this, creating an unsafe environment and lowering property values.
Furthermore, the shelter would likely introduce significant nuisances, such as noise, litter, and increased foot traffic. These disruptions would affect the quality of life for all residents, particularly those of us whose properties are directly adjacent to the proposed site. Our homes are our sanctuaries, and we deserve to maintain the tranquility and cleanliness of our community.
I urge you to reconsider the location of this shelter and explore alternative sites that are not in such close proximity to residential areas, particularly those with young families. We support efforts to address homelessness but believe this can be done in a way that does not compromise the safety and well-being of our community.
Thank you for considering my concerns. I respectfully request a response outlining how these issues will be addressed and an opportunity for further public discussion.
I am a resident of the Westshore community and I am writing to you with concerns about the city's lack of transparency on this topic. I hope the city council will implement measures to hold the city accountable to maintain what they told the community will happen at these communities or review the position that granted the city manager broad authority in placing these communities. Community members should have been given the opportunity to ask questions about the plan and not told this was going to happen no matter what we said. Community members learned of the project through a Sacramento Business Journal article shortly before the city council meeting. This blatant lack of transparency erodes public trust. The City Manager should stand behind their decision and explain to the community why they made the decision.
However, I have to commend Director Brian Pedro for coming to a community meeting and answering questions. He was calm, did not take the yelling personally, and tried to answer questions. It's hard to be a government employee and come face the community on unpopular topics and he did so professionally.
Hopefully, the city will interact with the community members better during the planning stages so that concerns are addressed. It would also help to better explain the proposal to counteract concerns.
Homelessness is a serious problem in Sacramento and until we build more housing and services to address their challenges, the problem will never be solved. It must start somewhere and to have everyone screaming built it somewhere else doesn't solve the issue of where "somewhere else" might be. We can't keep kicking the can down the road and we must do something to help people out of the inhumane conditions they are living in. The proposal for 55+ seniors to live in tiny homes, to pay a portion of their income to receive a stable place to live with wrap-around program and services to help them gives them some dignity and gets them off the streets.
There are no easy solutions. We are all doing the best we can. We need to remember, how would we want to be treated if we were in that circumstance? The answer should be with dignity and respect and a helping hand.
I urge the city to do better when working with the community to find solutions to homelessness.
I am currently working on my MFT PhD focusing on timely mental health care to prevent homelessness when suddenly injured or ill. This is the jest of it:
When suddenly injured or ill, and struggling economically to survive and remain housed, in the Sacramento, California region, it is vital that this population be provided timely access to trauma-focused mental health care that is effective for cognitive regulation and resilience. This study will be framed in a quality of healthcare services perspective, including determining the existing barriers that are in place that prevent access to not only timely trauma-focused mental health care but other resources as well. This study will not only examine these barriers, through social services participantst, but will also be important for highlighting the gaps in the research and social policy change to keep individuals and families housed during a crisis such as sudden injury or illness that is making it difficult to work and pay bills.
As I move forward with my research, I will continue to participate in various meetings concerning this topic.
Outrageous that such a major, negative affect to neighboring homeowner's, does not require and/or allow an opportunity for discussion.
District 5 residents would ask that we use one of the already vacant unused regional transit lots for this community plan
Proposal to build this directly across the street from a major hub for children at a vibrant little league park is ludicrous and very non empathetic.
The parents of the league are outraged and will not stand for this plan
We desperately need services yes. However
This is literally 150’ from children?
What measures are in place for vetting people?
Screenings for past criminal history drug use and possible crimes against children?
Most of these other sites have failed miserably and are eyesores to the community they surround such as X street
Besides that this is in the direct flight path for landing aircraft to the airport and was designated a “ no build zone “
I oppose any temporary shelter project that would be subsidized by federal SSI/SSDI dollars. If someone is paying 1/3 of their income on rent, that tenant deserves the rights, protections and freedoms that come with such a contract. We know that these people will be subject to curfews and searches and other unreasonable rules, and could be kicked out at any moment on the whim of the underpaid and underqualified staff. It is wrong to generate income off of people who have absolutely no rights and are treated like prisoners despite committing no crime.
Am I also reading correctly that the income generated by this model would be used toward encampment sweeps?
Think about that. Redirecting money intended to bring safety and stability to disabled people and seniors, being rerouted toward police enforcement of anti-camping laws. SSDI money will be used to crush people's wheelchairs. That is what that means. Shameful.
Mayor Kevin McCarty and the Sacramento City Council
City Hall
915 I St.
Sacramento, CA 95814
As the Executive Director of the Union Gospel Mission on Bannon Street, and a pastor in our city for 22 years, I am opposed to the idea of the proposed 'micro-community' directly across the road from our campus.
We already struggle to navigate the homeless who camp outside of our campus and who are not actually seeking our help. I believe this idea will only intensify our issues and fail to truly deal with the homeless issue at its source. Whilst I believe the intention of the idea is no doubt intended for good I believe it is ill-advised and will not help in the long-term.
It would have been useful to have had consultation on this proposal with as an agency directly impacted by this plan. I am disappointed that there has been none even although our campus is accessible 24 hours a day. I am more than happy to sit down with those proposing this to discuss better solutions to this pressing social issue.
There are no quick fixes nor easy answers to the problem we face in our city. What we do not need is ill-advised or unwise projects that do not truly present long term and beneficial solutions. We at Union Gospel Mission deal daily with the mental, physical, spiritual and economic issues that mark the homeless people of our city. We know them reasonably well in terms of behavior. We compassionately and definitively desire to be an ongoing part of the solution as an agency who does know how to get folks off the street and back into housing and normal life.
I strongly urge the City Council to do wider consultation and not to proceed with this present idea.
Yours sincerely and respectfully submitted
Pastor Robert Briggs BD, ThM
Executive Director, UGM
Every neighborhood has schools, children, and homes that are being impacted by the unhoused right now. Creating safe camping or parking sites anywhere and everywhere is desperately needed in the short term. Safer areas have security, trash disposal, and as much help as possible. Until permanent low to no income housing is built, it's either shove them around aimlessly with no oversight or control, or provide some semblance of structure and safety for everyone with safe alternatives.
So, I support the cities efforts to solve the problem. If you are opposed, what's your specific solution? What realistic neighborhood has the magical qualitities of no children, schools, houses, or businesses that would meet your criteria? And how is having completely unsupervised desperate people going anywhere and then being pushed somewhere else helping anyone?
This is a very hard problem.
I strongly oppose the City’s proposal to establish a “micro-community” tent site for up to 120 unhoused individuals at Bannon Street and Sequoia Pacific Boulevard, behind the Greyhound Bus Station.
The River District already carries more than its fair share of Sacramento’s shelter and service infrastructure—over 526 publicly funded shelter beds within just 1.25 square miles. We host Union Gospel Mission, Loaves & Fishes, and multiple other providers. Adding yet another large-scale site here is not fair, not responsible, and not sustainable. It continues to concentrate the City’s challenges in one neighborhood rather than distributing them equitably across all districts.
This site is also incompatible with the future of our city. It sits next to homes and businesses, and steps away from the new May Lee State Office Complex, the planned Kaiser Permanente Medical Center, and the Sacramento Republic FC Soccer Stadium in the Railyards. Billions of dollars in public and private investment depend on a stable and safe environment. A sanctioned tent city in the middle of this redevelopment zone threatens to derail Sacramento’s momentum.
Meanwhile, the largest provider in our area does not connect people with housing and is only open from 6 a.m. to 3 p.m.—leaving our neighborhood without services at night, when safety issues are most severe. Without housing pathways or round-the-clock support, this plan only repeats failed strategies.
The River District is already at a breaking point. We urgently need more enforcement resources, not another facility that draws more unhoused individuals to our neighborhood. Other districts must step up.
For these reasons, I urge Council to reject this proposal and pursue a fair, citywide solution that balances both homelessness response and economic revitalization.
Councilmembers and Mayor McCarthy,
I am deeply concerned about the proposal to build a homeless shelter in our neighborhood on the corner of El Centro and Arena Blvd in North Natomas. There has not been sufficent transparency with the residence nearby with many still unaware. We request written accountability by the City of who will occupy these micro-communities. What criteria will be used in the selection process? Will a thorough psychological evaluation be done on occupants beforehand? Will an extensive look into their background be done; one that looks not only into convictions but past history. Where will these records be housed? We need transparency by the city of the exact measures that WILL be taken to protect current residents. What is the police departments capacity in response if crime increases in this area due to this project? Past micro communities for the unhoused have shown an increase in crime. For example, in Seattle's Licton Springs Village, crime increased 103% within a two city-block radius due to drug use and trespassing. We ask for a list of all other alternative sites and reasons why they were disqualified. There are better suited areas for this project. Due to the lack of transparency so far I oppose. Councilmembers, as a community we are aware of who is advocating for our voices and ask that you do your due diligence in exploring alternative options.
I strongly oppose the motion before Council regarding the additional safe camping and micro-community programs in the River District.
I am both a business owner and a resident of the River District (District 4), and I see firsthand every day how concentrated services have negatively impacted our community. Our district is already home to a disproportionate share of homeless services and encampments, and it is not right that we continue to carry this burden while other districts are not asked to do their fair share. This is not equitable, and it is not sustainable.
We are at a breaking point. The River District urgently needs more enforcement resources to address immediate safety, fire, and public health emergencies. Our businesses and residents are struggling under the daily impacts of unchecked encampments, crime, and unsafe conditions. If resources are limited, they should be directed to where the need is most critical—and right now, that is here.
Equally important, services placed in our district must actually connect people to long-term housing solutions. The largest service provider in our area currently does not provide housing connections, and it is only open from 6 a.m. to 3 p.m. This means there is no support during the evening and nighttime hours—precisely when problems are most severe and when our community is most at risk. Without real housing pathways and round-the-clock support, adding more services here simply recycles the same failures.
More beds in the River District will only serve to attract additional unhoused individuals to our neighborhood, worsening the situation for everyone. Other districts across Sacramento also have significant needs, and it is time for the City to distribute services more equitably. Concentrating them in one neighborhood has proven not to work.
For these reasons, I urge City Council to reject this proposal. Instead, prioritize equitable distribution of services, require that providers include direct housing connections, extend service hours to address critical evening needs, and increase enforcement resources immediately in the River District to address our emergency conditions.
I oppose the proposed tiny home project in North Natomas. While I recognize the importance of addressing homelessness in our city, placing this development in our community is not an appropriate solution.
The Arena & El Centro area does not have the resources or infrastructure to support the needs of unhoused individuals. Job opportunities, medical care, mental health services, and food assistance are limited in this area. Placing people here without adequate support sets them up for failure and risks straining the resources that currently exist for families who already live here.
The proposed site is in close proximity to schools, parks, and family neighborhoods. These are spaces intended for children and families, and bringing this project here raises serious concerns about safety, quality of life, and the long-term impact on the community including property values in which we have invested into the community would dissipate.
Not just thinking about the 40-60 individuals who would be “selected” to live in this development but when type of people who follow, loiter, bring in crime and drugs. It is proven, homeless community after homeless community that crime follows. Why is this site being favored over the children who are already community members of North Natomas?
I urge the council to oppose this proposal and instead identify a location where these individuals can be better supported with access to services, employment, and care—without jeopardizing the stability of family-oriented neighborhoods.
Sincerely,
Tierney Bates
Please dont bring more crime, drugs and everything else that comes with homelessness to our area (Natomas). We are dealing with enough homelessness and the city WONT take action. Our canals are filled with encampment, many of these occupants are under the required age of this new community, so this wont help Natomas's homeless situation, but only make it worse! Handle the problem of current homeless people on our city first!
September 16, 2025
Mayor Kevin McCarty and the Sacramento City Council
City Hall
915 I St.
Sacramento, CA 95814
Subject: Opposition to Proposed Micro-Community at Bannon Street and Sequoia Pacific Boulevard
Dear Mayor McCarty and Sacramento City Council,
We, the undersigned neighboring property and business owners, are writing to express our strong opposition to the City’s proposal to establish a “micro-community” tent site for up to 120 unhoused individuals on the one-acre city-owned parcel southeast of Bannon Street and Sequoia Pacific Boulevard, directly behind the Greyhound Bus Station at 420 Richards Boulevard.
While we acknowledge the pressing need for comprehensive solutions to homelessness, this proposal is not an appropriate or responsible location for such a facility. The River District already bears a disproportionate burden of Sacramento’s shelter and social service infrastructure, with 526 publicly funded shelter beds concentrated within our 1.25 square mile district. Nearby facilities include the Union Gospel Mission, Loaves & Fishes, and multiple other service providers. The addition of another large-scale site here would deepen the overconcentration of services in one neighborhood, rather than promoting an equitable, citywide approach.
This proposed location also raises serious concerns about compatibility with current and future land uses. The site is immediately adjacent to businesses and residences, sits steps away from the new May Lee State Office Complex, and near the future Kaiser Permanente Medical Center and Sacramento Republic FC Soccer Stadium in the Railyards. These are critical investments that require a stable and safe environment to succeed. The introduction of a sanctioned tent site of this size threatens to undermine both private redevelopment momentum and public confidence in the neighborhood’s transformation.
The River District has long shouldered far more than its fair share of Sacramento’s homelessness response. We urge the City to reject this proposal and instead prioritize locating new facilities in other parts of Sacramento that have not absorbed similar levels of shelter capacity. A balanced approach is essential if we are to meet the dual goals of addressing homelessness while also fostering equitable economic development across the city.
For these reasons, we cannot support the proposed micro-community at Bannon Street and Sequoia Pacific Boulevard. We respectfully request that the City pursue alternative locations and solutions that align with both the needs of unhoused individuals and the long-term revitalization of the River District.
Sincerely,
Kirsten Ureno
First Pointe Management Group
2215 Plaza Drive
Rocklin, CA 95765
Mayor Kevin McCarty & City of Sacramento City Council
City Hall Complex
915 I Street
Sacramento, CA 95814
Subject: Opposition to Proposed Micro-Community at Bannon Street and Sequoia Pacific Boulevard
Dear Mayor McCarty and City of Sacramento City Council,
We, the undersigned neighboring property and business owners, are writing to express our strong opposition to the City’s proposal to establish a “micro-community” tent site for up to 120 unhoused individuals on the one-acre city-owned parcel southeast of Bannon Street and Sequoia Pacific Boulevard, directly behind the Greyhound Bus Station at 420 Richards Boulevard.
While we acknowledge the pressing need for comprehensive solutions to homelessness, this proposal is not an appropriate or responsible location for such a facility. The River District already bears a disproportionate burden of Sacramento’s shelter and social service infrastructure, with 526 publicly funded shelter beds concentrated within our 1.25 square mile district. Nearby facilities include the Union Gospel Mission, Loaves & Fishes, and multiple other service providers. The addition of another large-scale site here would deepen the overconcentration of services in one neighborhood, rather than promoting an equitable, citywide approach.
This proposed location also raises serious concerns about compatibility with current and future land uses. The site is immediately adjacent to businesses and residences, sits steps away from the new May Lee State Office Complex, and near the future Kaiser Permanente Medical Center and Sacramento Republic FC Soccer Stadium in the Railyards. These are critical investments that require a stable and safe environment to succeed. The introduction of a sanctioned tent site of this size threatens to undermine both private redevelopment momentum and public confidence in the neighborhood’s transformation.
The River District has long shouldered far more than its fair share of Sacramento’s homelessness response. We urge the City to reject this proposal and instead prioritize locating new facilities in other parts of Sacramento that have not absorbed similar levels of shelter capacity. A balanced approach is essential if we are to meet the dual goals of addressing homelessness while also fostering equitable economic development across the city.
For these reasons, we cannot support the proposed micro-community at Bannon Street and Sequoia Pacific Boulevard. We respectfully request that the City pursue alternative locations and solutions that align with both the needs of unhoused individuals and the long-term revitalization of the River District.
Sincerely,
Gina Albanese
Asset Manager
First Pointe Management Group
Track 281 Apartment Homes
321 Bercut Drive
Sacramento, CA 95811
Dear Members of the Sacramento City Council,
I am writing to express my strenuous opposition to the proposed tiny home community at the corner of Arena Boulevard and El Centro Road in North Natomas. I am citizen of District 1 and I have deep concerns regarding the situation in North Natomas.
While I recognize the critical need to address homelessness in our city, this location is profoundly unsuitable for such a development due to significant risks and existing challenges that would exacerbate problems for both residents and the broader community. I urge you to reject this site and explore alternatives that better align with public safety, sustainability, and effective service delivery to those in need.
First, North Natomas is one of the most flood-prone areas in the nation, situated in a low-lying basin surrounded by rivers and canals. A levee breach could result in flood depths of 10 to 25 feet, endangering lives and property. Natomas has a history of severe flooding risks, ranking among the highest in the U.S. for catastrophic potential. Placing vulnerable individuals, including seniors experiencing homelessness, in this high-risk flood zone is irresponsible and could lead to tragedy during extreme weather events, which have become more frequent.
Additionally, the area is already plagued by traffic congestion, particularly around major arterials like Arena Boulevard and intersections with I-5 and I-80. Introducing a new community here would intensify gridlock, increase commute times, and strain infrastructure that is ill-equipped for additional volume.
This site contributes to urban sprawl in a region that has rapidly expanded without adequate planning for sustainable growth, leading to longer drives, higher emissions, and diminished quality of life. North Natomas was developed as a suburban edge city, but further encroachment risks turning it into an unsustainable extension of the urban core without the necessary amenities.
Concerns about crime are also paramount. While North Natomas currently enjoys relatively lower crime rates compared to other parts of Sacramento, introducing a concentrated population of individuals facing homelessness could strain local resources and potentially elevate incidents of property crime or other issues, as seen in similar developments elsewhere. Residents have invested in this community expecting stability, and this proposal threatens that without clear mitigation strategies.
Finally, the location is isolated from essential support services and medical facilities critical for the target population. The nearest hospitals, such as Sutter Medical Center, Mercy General, and the UC Davis Medical Center are far in proximity thereby making timely access challenging, especially for vulnerable seniors or those without reliable transportation.This leaves residents far from the downtown services and healthcare hubs they may urgently need.
In summary, this proposal disregards the site’s inherent dangers and inadequacies, prioritizing expediency over prudence. I implore this Council to prioritize safer, more accessible locations that truly support those in need while preserving the integrity of North Natomas.
Thank you for considering this urgent and vital matter.
Respectfully,
Ashley S. Hamidi
ashamidi@alumni.ucdavis.edu
I always keep in mind the question, “What if this unhoused person was me or a family member?”
Temporary housing is vital for unhoused people to have the time and energy to become re-housed. Many unhoused are seniors and have disabilities. These homes must be accessible to seniors and disabled individuals. There must be electricity, water, heat and air conditioning. There must be other social and medical support systems in place to help these individuals gain permanent, appropriate, and safe housing. These support systems must be nearby or easily accessible by local transit.
I am a longtime resident of District 4 and I’m deeply concerned about the ongoing safety and sanitation issues surrounding McKinley Park. Many neighbors have experienced repeated incidents of unlawful behavior, including overnight camping, theft, vandalism, and the accumulation of hazardous waste such as needles, trash, and human waste. These activities not only degrade our public spaces but also jeopardize the well-being of families, children, and park visitors. I strongly support the implementation of 24-hour patrols in city parks to deter illegal activity and restore a sense of safety and stewardship in our neighborhoods. Our community is ready to collaborate on solutions that protect both residents and vulnerable populations while preserving the integrity of our parks.
9/16/25
Subject: Opposition to Proposed Micro-Community at Bannon Street and Sequoia Pacific Boulevard
Dear Council,
We, the undersigned neighboring property and business owners, are writing to express our strong opposition to the City’s proposal to establish a “micro-community” tent site for up to 120 unhoused individuals on the one-acre city-owned parcel southeast of Bannon Street and Sequoia Pacific Boulevard, directly behind the Greyhound Bus Station at 420 Richards Boulevard.
While we acknowledge the pressing need for comprehensive solutions to homelessness, this proposal is not an appropriate or responsible location for such a facility. The River District already bears a disproportionate burden of Sacramento’s shelter and social service infrastructure, with 526 publicly funded shelter beds concentrated within our 1.25 square mile district. Nearby facilities include the Union Gospel Mission, Loaves & Fishes, and multiple other service providers. The addition of another large-scale site here would deepen the overconcentration of services in one neighborhood, rather than promoting an equitable, citywide approach.
This proposed location also raises serious concerns about compatibility with current and future land uses. The site is immediately adjacent to businesses and residences, sits steps away from the new May Lee State Office Complex, and near the future Kaiser Permanente Medical Center and Sacramento Republic FC Soccer Stadium in the Railyards. These are critical investments that require a stable and safe environment to succeed. The introduction of a sanctioned tent site of this size threatens to undermine both private redevelopment momentum and public confidence in the neighborhood’s transformation.
The River District has long shouldered far more than its fair share of Sacramento’s homelessness response. We urge the City to reject this proposal and instead prioritize locating new facilities in other parts of Sacramento that have not absorbed similar levels of shelter capacity. A balanced approach is essential if we are to meet the dual goals of addressing homelessness while also fostering equitable economic development across the city.
For these reasons, we cannot support the proposed micro-community at Bannon Street and Sequoia Pacific Boulevard. We respectfully request that the City pursue alternative locations and solutions that align with both the needs of unhoused individuals and the long-term revitalization of the River District.
Sincerely,
Priscilla
Track 281
321 Bercut Drive
Submitting this letter on behalf of Midtown Association and the 112 blocks of commercial properties we represent. We appreciate your consideration.
I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed plan to construct a homeless shelter directly behind my residence. While I understand the need to address homelessness, I have serious concerns about the potential negative impacts this development would have on our neighborhood, particularly regarding safety, crime, and quality of life.
First and foremost, the proximity of the proposed shelter to our homes raises significant safety concerns for our children. Our neighborhood is a family-oriented community where children play freely in backyards and nearby streets. Introducing a shelter could increase risks, as it may attract transient populations or individuals with unaddressed mental health or substance abuse issues, potentially leading to unpredictable behavior. The safety of our children must be prioritized, and this project threatens the secure environment we have worked hard to maintain.
Additionally, there is a well-documented correlation between homeless shelters and increased crime rates in surrounding areas. Studies and reports from other communities with similar facilities often note rises in theft, vandalism, and other disturbances. Our neighborhood is currently a peaceful and low-crime area, and we fear that the shelter could disrupt this, creating an unsafe environment and lowering property values.
Furthermore, the shelter would likely introduce significant nuisances, such as noise, litter, and increased foot traffic. These disruptions would affect the quality of life for all residents, particularly those of us whose properties are directly adjacent to the proposed site. Our homes are our sanctuaries, and we deserve to maintain the tranquility and cleanliness of our community.
I urge you to reconsider the location of this shelter and explore alternative sites that are not in such close proximity to residential areas, particularly those with young families. We support efforts to address homelessness but believe this can be done in a way that does not compromise the safety and well-being of our community.
Thank you for considering my concerns. I respectfully request a response outlining how these issues will be addressed and an opportunity for further public discussion.
I am a resident of the Westshore community and I am writing to you with concerns about the city's lack of transparency on this topic. I hope the city council will implement measures to hold the city accountable to maintain what they told the community will happen at these communities or review the position that granted the city manager broad authority in placing these communities. Community members should have been given the opportunity to ask questions about the plan and not told this was going to happen no matter what we said. Community members learned of the project through a Sacramento Business Journal article shortly before the city council meeting. This blatant lack of transparency erodes public trust. The City Manager should stand behind their decision and explain to the community why they made the decision.
However, I have to commend Director Brian Pedro for coming to a community meeting and answering questions. He was calm, did not take the yelling personally, and tried to answer questions. It's hard to be a government employee and come face the community on unpopular topics and he did so professionally.
Hopefully, the city will interact with the community members better during the planning stages so that concerns are addressed. It would also help to better explain the proposal to counteract concerns.
Homelessness is a serious problem in Sacramento and until we build more housing and services to address their challenges, the problem will never be solved. It must start somewhere and to have everyone screaming built it somewhere else doesn't solve the issue of where "somewhere else" might be. We can't keep kicking the can down the road and we must do something to help people out of the inhumane conditions they are living in. The proposal for 55+ seniors to live in tiny homes, to pay a portion of their income to receive a stable place to live with wrap-around program and services to help them gives them some dignity and gets them off the streets.
There are no easy solutions. We are all doing the best we can. We need to remember, how would we want to be treated if we were in that circumstance? The answer should be with dignity and respect and a helping hand.
I urge the city to do better when working with the community to find solutions to homelessness.
I am currently working on my MFT PhD focusing on timely mental health care to prevent homelessness when suddenly injured or ill. This is the jest of it:
When suddenly injured or ill, and struggling economically to survive and remain housed, in the Sacramento, California region, it is vital that this population be provided timely access to trauma-focused mental health care that is effective for cognitive regulation and resilience. This study will be framed in a quality of healthcare services perspective, including determining the existing barriers that are in place that prevent access to not only timely trauma-focused mental health care but other resources as well. This study will not only examine these barriers, through social services participantst, but will also be important for highlighting the gaps in the research and social policy change to keep individuals and families housed during a crisis such as sudden injury or illness that is making it difficult to work and pay bills.
As I move forward with my research, I will continue to participate in various meetings concerning this topic.