[Contract Supplement] Emergency Bridge Housing Shelter at Grove Avenue
File ID: 2026-00860 | Two-Thirds Vote Required
My name is Richard Loek. I am a resident of North Natomas and Chairperson of the Advisory Council for Legal and Ethical Oversight. I am submitting this comment regarding the Grove Avenue Emergency Bridge Housing contract supplement.
I want to begin by acknowledging something directly: the Grove Avenue site was originally conceived as emergency transitional housing for young adults aging out of foster care — one of the most vulnerable populations in Sacramento. That intent is not what I am here to challenge. Compassion-driven programs deserve to be funded.
What I am here to address is governance. The label “Emergency Bridge Housing” covers a range of project types, and the legal authority and environmental review obligations differ significantly depending on whether a project is genuinely temporary emergency shelter or something more permanent. The distinction matters because Ordinance 2023-00995 — the authority under which this and similar contracts have been approved — was written to authorize temporary shelter spaces. The ordinance's own text names safe-ground camping sites and motel rooms as the intended model.
The City is now building something very different at 3511 Arena Boulevard under the same authority: a 40-unit project with permanent foundations, underground utilities, concrete paving, and a 30% income payment structure after 90 days of residency. The City's Department of Community Response director has publicly confirmed the overall cost per community is approximately $3 to $4 million. That is not a camping program.
When the same legal authority is used to authorize projects of fundamentally different character and permanence, the Council has an obligation to ensure that each project has been individually reviewed — legally, environmentally, and for consistency with the governing ordinance's actual scope.
My request to this Council is specific and narrow: before approving this supplement, confirm for the public record that the Grove Avenue site has completed CEQA environmental review, and confirm that the project type falls within the scope of what Ordinance 2023-00995 was intended to authorize. If it does, say so. The public is entitled to that clarity.
I am asking for accountability, not obstruction. Transparent governance and compassionate programs are not in conflict. But when a community asks questions and the answer from a City official is that the City is “not required to follow their own rules,” something has gone wrong. This is an opportunity to demonstrate that accountability has been restored.
Thank you.
Richard Loek
Chairperson, Advisory Council for Legal and Ethical Oversight (ACE-O)
North Natomas, Sacramento, CA 95835
I respectfully ask the City of Sacramento to confirm whether a full review under the California Environmental Quality Act has been completed for this project, and whether all of its requirements have been fully met. I’d also like the City to clearly explain how the review evaluated potential environmental impacts, what mitigation steps are being taken, and how community input was actually included in the process. CEQA compliance really matters—it’s what ensures transparency, accountability, and that environmental protection is part of decision-making. It’s also key to making sure our community is being responsibly and thoughtfully protected.
Re: CEQA Review and Compliance
I respectfully request that the City of Sacramento government confirm whether a full review under the CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act) has been completed for this project, and whether all requirements of the Act have been fully satisfied. In particular, we ask the City to demonstrate how the environmental review process has thoroughly evaluated potential impacts, incorporated feasible mitigation measures, and meaningfully included community input.
Compliance with CEQA is essential to ensure transparency, accountability, and the integration of environmental protection into public decision-making, as well as to uphold responsible ecological stewardship for our community.
[Contract Supplement] Emergency Bridge Housing Shelter at Grove Avenue
File ID: 2026-00860 | Two-Thirds Vote Required
My name is Richard Loek. I am a resident of North Natomas and Chairperson of the Advisory Council for Legal and Ethical Oversight. I am submitting this comment regarding the Grove Avenue Emergency Bridge Housing contract supplement.
I want to begin by acknowledging something directly: the Grove Avenue site was originally conceived as emergency transitional housing for young adults aging out of foster care — one of the most vulnerable populations in Sacramento. That intent is not what I am here to challenge. Compassion-driven programs deserve to be funded.
What I am here to address is governance. The label “Emergency Bridge Housing” covers a range of project types, and the legal authority and environmental review obligations differ significantly depending on whether a project is genuinely temporary emergency shelter or something more permanent. The distinction matters because Ordinance 2023-00995 — the authority under which this and similar contracts have been approved — was written to authorize temporary shelter spaces. The ordinance's own text names safe-ground camping sites and motel rooms as the intended model.
The City is now building something very different at 3511 Arena Boulevard under the same authority: a 40-unit project with permanent foundations, underground utilities, concrete paving, and a 30% income payment structure after 90 days of residency. The City's Department of Community Response director has publicly confirmed the overall cost per community is approximately $3 to $4 million. That is not a camping program.
When the same legal authority is used to authorize projects of fundamentally different character and permanence, the Council has an obligation to ensure that each project has been individually reviewed — legally, environmentally, and for consistency with the governing ordinance's actual scope.
My request to this Council is specific and narrow: before approving this supplement, confirm for the public record that the Grove Avenue site has completed CEQA environmental review, and confirm that the project type falls within the scope of what Ordinance 2023-00995 was intended to authorize. If it does, say so. The public is entitled to that clarity.
I am asking for accountability, not obstruction. Transparent governance and compassionate programs are not in conflict. But when a community asks questions and the answer from a City official is that the City is “not required to follow their own rules,” something has gone wrong. This is an opportunity to demonstrate that accountability has been restored.
Thank you.
Richard Loek
Chairperson, Advisory Council for Legal and Ethical Oversight (ACE-O)
North Natomas, Sacramento, CA 95835
I respectfully ask the City of Sacramento to confirm whether a full review under the California Environmental Quality Act has been completed for this project, and whether all of its requirements have been fully met. I’d also like the City to clearly explain how the review evaluated potential environmental impacts, what mitigation steps are being taken, and how community input was actually included in the process. CEQA compliance really matters—it’s what ensures transparency, accountability, and that environmental protection is part of decision-making. It’s also key to making sure our community is being responsibly and thoughtfully protected.
Re: CEQA Review and Compliance
I respectfully request that the City of Sacramento government confirm whether a full review under the CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act) has been completed for this project, and whether all requirements of the Act have been fully satisfied. In particular, we ask the City to demonstrate how the environmental review process has thoroughly evaluated potential impacts, incorporated feasible mitigation measures, and meaningfully included community input.
Compliance with CEQA is essential to ensure transparency, accountability, and the integration of environmental protection into public decision-making, as well as to uphold responsible ecological stewardship for our community.