My name is Richard Loek. I am a North Natomas resident and Chairperson of the Advisory Council for Legal and Ethical Oversight. I am submitting this comment on the Roseville Road South Campus contract supplement.
The Roseville Road campus is one of the City's larger shelter operations. I have no objection in principle to funding shelter operations that were lawfully approved, properly reviewed, and transparently administered. My comment today is about what the pattern of consent-calendar supplements — approved one by one, without any systematic accounting to the public — tells us about how this Council is exercising its oversight role.
This is the third shelter contract supplement on today's consent calendar. Each is approved under Ordinance 2023-00995. Each requires a two-thirds vote. And yet none of them appears to include a public-facing status report on CEQA compliance, on whether the project type falls within the ordinance's authorized scope, or on what the total cumulative expenditure under this single ordinance now totals.
This Council passed Ordinance 2023-00995 by a 5-to-4 vote. Four members of this Council — including Councilmember Kaplan and Vice Mayor Talamantes, who represent North Natomas — voted no. The reason that vote was close is that reasonable people disagreed about whether this level of delegated authority without ongoing Council review was appropriate. Those concerns have since proven prescient.
The current litigation at Sacramento Superior Court — case 26WM000093, filed March 30, 2026 — raises directly the question of whether the authority delegated by Ordinance 2023-00995 was exercised within its legal limits at 3511 Arena Boulevard. The City's own sworn filings in that case confirm that CEQA review remains incomplete. The City's own sworn filings confirm no construction contract has been signed and no construction date is set. These are facts entered into the court record by City employees — not by the petitioners.
What I am asking this Council to do is simple, and it is something a Council with genuine oversight responsibility should want: before approving further supplements under this ordinance, direct the City Manager to provide a single consolidated public status report showing: (1) every active contract approved under Ordinance 2023-00995 to date; (2) the total expenditure authorized; (3) the CEQA determination status at each site; and (4) whether each project has been classified as temporary or permanent.
That report will either demonstrate that this program is being administered lawfully and transparently — in which case the Council will have strengthened public confidence — or it will identify gaps that should have been closed before today's supplements came to the consent calendar.
Either outcome serves the public. I ask that this Council require it.
Thank you.
Richard Loek
Chairperson, Advisory Council for Legal and Ethical Oversight (ACE-O)
North Natomas, Sacramento, CA 95835
April 28, 2026
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] Roseville Road South Campus Operations
File ID: 2026-00861 | Two-Thirds Vote Required
My name is Richard Loek. I am a North Natomas resident and Chairperson of the Advisory Council for Legal and Ethical Oversight. I am submitting this comment on the Roseville Road South Campus contract supplement.
The Roseville Road campus is one of the City's larger shelter operations. I have no objection in principle to funding shelter operations that were lawfully approved, properly reviewed, and transparently administered. My comment today is about what the pattern of consent-calendar supplements — approved one by one, without any systematic accounting to the public — tells us about how this Council is exercising its oversight role.
This is the third shelter contract supplement on today's consent calendar. Each is approved under Ordinance 2023-00995. Each requires a two-thirds vote. And yet none of them appears to include a public-facing status report on CEQA compliance, on whether the project type falls within the ordinance's authorized scope, or on what the total cumulative expenditure under this single ordinance now totals.
This Council passed Ordinance 2023-00995 by a 5-to-4 vote. Four members of this Council — including Councilmember Kaplan and Vice Mayor Talamantes, who represent North Natomas — voted no. The reason that vote was close is that reasonable people disagreed about whether this level of delegated authority without ongoing Council review was appropriate. Those concerns have since proven prescient.
The current litigation at Sacramento Superior Court — case 26WM000093, filed March 30, 2026 — raises directly the question of whether the authority delegated by Ordinance 2023-00995 was exercised within its legal limits at 3511 Arena Boulevard. The City's own sworn filings in that case confirm that CEQA review remains incomplete. The City's own sworn filings confirm no construction contract has been signed and no construction date is set. These are facts entered into the court record by City employees — not by the petitioners.
What I am asking this Council to do is simple, and it is something a Council with genuine oversight responsibility should want: before approving further supplements under this ordinance, direct the City Manager to provide a single consolidated public status report showing: (1) every active contract approved under Ordinance 2023-00995 to date; (2) the total expenditure authorized; (3) the CEQA determination status at each site; and (4) whether each project has been classified as temporary or permanent.
That report will either demonstrate that this program is being administered lawfully and transparently — in which case the Council will have strengthened public confidence — or it will identify gaps that should have been closed before today's supplements came to the consent calendar.
Either outcome serves the public. I ask that this Council require it.
Thank you.
Richard Loek
Chairperson, Advisory Council for Legal and Ethical Oversight (ACE-O)
North Natomas, Sacramento, CA 95835
April 28, 2026
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.