FILED

Suflferior CoiJit Of
SacratneiitCi
09/15/2021
1 G. BRAIDEN CHAD WICK, Bar No. 227536 tcrowther
bchadwick(^mitchellchadwick.com Dapuly
2 JOHN T. WHEAT, Bar No. 281398
j wheat@mitchellchadwick. com C&6e Number:
3 Mitchell Chadwick LLP 34-2021 "80003732
3001 Lava Ridge Ct #120
4 Roseville, Califomia 95661
Telephone: (916) 462-8888
5 Facsimile: (916)788.0290
6
Attomeys for Petitioner
7 COALITION FOR COMPASSION and MICHAEL
MALINOWSKI
8
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
9
COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
10
11
COALITION FOR COMPASSION and Case No.
12 MICHAEL MALINOWSKI, Judge:
13 Petitioners, VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF
MANDATE FOR VIOLATION OF THE
14 CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY ACT
15 CITY OF SACRAMENTO; and DOES 1-
100, inclusive. (Code Civ. Proc, §§ 1085, 1094.5; Pub. Res.
16 Code, §21000, etseq.)
Respondents
17 (Califomia Environmental Quality Act)
18
19 DOES 101-200, inclusive.
20 Respondents,
Defendants, and Real
21 Parties in Interest
22
23
24 Petitioners COALITION FOR COMPASSION and MICHAEL MALINOWSKI
25 (hereinafter, "Petitioners" or "Coalition") allege as follows:
26 INTRODUCTION AND PARTIES
27 1. For many years, the City of Sacramento ("Respondent") has been attempting to
28 find ways to address a chronic concem regarding numerous individuals that are unhoused,
{00054352;2 } - 1-

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MA^^DATE

 1 spendmg many millions of dollars every year and repeatedly proposing new ideas and plans.
2 2. Respondent's latest attempt to address the unhoused—^the City of Sacramento
3 Master Siting Plan to Address Homelessness ("Project")—is a mshed, behind-the-scenes,
4 political deal that blatantly ignores serious short- and long-term, and potentially fatal harm to the
5 unhoused, and wholly disregards significant environmental impacts that will occur as a result of
6 the Project. The details of the Project were kept secret from the public until the absolute last
7 minute, then rushed through in an up-or-down vote during a non-regular City Council meeting.
8 3. A major component of the Project involves relocating many hundreds of unhoused
9 individuals and congregating them under the W/X freeway, where they will be exposed to
10 extremely loud noises and deadly emissions and particulates that can cause substantial impacts on
11 their health and well-being. Indeed, expert state and local agencies air agencies (such as the
12 Califomia Air Resources Board and Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality District) strongly
13 advise against siting any residential uses in close proximity tofireewayswith 100,000 vehicles per
14 day, let alone directly undemeath such a freeway. The W/X freeway in the area where the City is
15 planning to congregate hundreds of vulnerable, unhoused individuals has average daily traffic that
16 is more than double this critical safety threshold.
17 4. As alleged below, the City's procedural and substantive CEQA defects when
18 approving the Project are pervasive andfimdamental,so much so that they make informed
19 decision-making and informed public participation—hallmarks of the CEQA process—
20 impossible. Given the City's violations of CEQA when it approved the Project on August 9,
21 2021, Petitioner requests that the Court issue a writ of mandate directing Respondent to rescind
22 and set aside the Project, and to complete environmental review of the Project as required by
23 CEQA.
24 5. Petitioner, the Coalition for Compassion, is an unincorporated association with the
25 primary purpose of promoting the welfare of all of the City of Sacramento's residents—both the
26 housed and the unhoused. The Coalition and its respective members have a direct and substantizil
27 beneficial interest in ensuring that Respondent complies with laws regarding environmental
28 protection. The Coalition and its respective members are adversely affected by Respondent's
{00054352;2 } -2 -

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE

 1 failure to comply with the Califomia Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") in approving the
2 Project. The Coalition has standing to assert the claims raised in this Petition because the
3 Coalition and its members' environmental interests are directly and adversely affected by
4 Respondent's approval of the Project. The Coalition has no plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in
5 the ordinary course of law in that the Coalition, and those whom the Coalition serves, will suffer
6 irreparable harm if the Project is implemented. In addition, the Coalition has standing to pursue
7 this action to vindicate the rights of the public under CEQA and to ensure that proper
8 environmental review under CEQA is completed.
9 6. Petitioner Michael Malinowski is an individual and resident of the City of
10 Sacramento. He has an interest in ensuring open, accountable, responsive govemment and in
11 protecting the region's environment. Malinowski is adversely affected by Respondent's failure to
12 comply with the Califomia Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") in approving the Project.
13 Malinowski has standing to assert the claims raised in this Petition because Malinowski's
14 environmental interests are directly and adversely affected by Respondent's approval of the
15 Project. Malinowski has no plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law in
16 that Malinowski will suffer irreparable harm if the Project is implemented. In addition,
17 Malinowski has standing to pursue this action to vindicate the rights of the public under CEQA
18 and to ensure that proper environmental review under CEQA is completed.
19 7. The Coalition is informed and believes that Respondent, the City of Sacramento, is
20 a charter city incorporated under the laws of the State of California. The City is the lead agency
21 under CEQA.
22 8. The tme names and capacities of the Respondents, Defendants, and Real Parties in
23 Interest identified as DOES 1-200 are unknown to the Coalition, and the Coalition will amend
24 this Petition to insert the tme names and capacities of thosefictitiously-namedparties when they
25 are ascertained.
26 9. The Coalition is infonned and believes, and on that basis alleges, that at all times
27 relevant to this action, each of the Respondents, Defendants, and Real Parties in Interest,
28 including thosefictitiouslynamed, were agents or employees of each of the other Respondents,
{00054352;2} -3-

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE

 1 Defendants, and Real Parties in Interest, and while acting within the course and scope pf such
2 employment or agency, took part in either the acts or omissions alleged in this Petition.
3 10. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Public Resources Code
4 sections 21167, subdivision (a), 21168, and 21168.5, and Code of Civil Procedure sections 1060
5 etseq., 1085, and 1094.5.
6 11. Original venue is proper in this Court pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure sections
7 392, 393, 394, 395, and 860. Notably, the Project is located partially or wholly in Sacramento
8 County.
9 12. The Coalition has performed or is excusedfi'omperforming any and all conditions
10 precedent to filing the instant action and has exhausted any and all administrative remedies to the
11 extent required by law, including as required by Public Resources Code section 21177. Notably,
12 the Coalition objected to the Project, and the grounds for this action were presented to
13 Respondent orally or in writing by the Coalition, its members, and other interested persons before
14 Respondent approved the Project.
15 NOTICE OF PROCEEDING
16 13. The Coalition has complied with the requirements of Public Resources Code
17 section 21167.5 in mailing a notice of commencement of this action to Respondents, prior to
18 filing this Petition. A copy of this notice is attached as Exhibit "A" hereto and incorporated
19 herein by this reference.
20 14. The Coalition will comply with the requirements of Public Resources Code section
21 21167.7 and Code of Civil Procedure section 388 by serving the Attomey General of the State of
22 Califomia with notice of and a copy of this lawsuit. A copy of this mailing, without copy of this
23 pleading, is attached as Exhibit "B" hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.
24 PREPARATION OF THE RECORD
25 15. Pursuant to Public Resources Code, section 21167.6(b)(2), the Coalition elects to
26 prepare the record of proceedings in this action. Concurrently with this Petition, the Coalition is
27 filing a notice of its election to prepare the administrative record. A copy of that election is
28 attached as Exhibit C.
{000S4352;2 ) - 4 -

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE

 1 TIMELINESS
2 16. This lawsuit has been commenced within the time limits imposed for this action
3 under Public Resources Code section 21167, 21168, and/or 21168.5.
4 FACTUAL BACKGROUND
5 17. CEQA is Califomia's broadest environmental law. CEQA helps to guide public
6 agencies such as the City during issuance of permits and approval of projects. Courts have
7 interpreted CEQA to afford the fiillest protection of the environment within the reasonable scope
8 of the statutes. CEQA applies to all discretionary projects proposed to be conducted or approved
9 by a City, including private projects requiring discretionary govemment approval.
10 18. CEQA broadly defines a project as an activity which may cause either a direct
11 physical chemge in the enviroimient, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the
12 environment, and that involves the issuance to a person of a lease, permit license, certificate or
13 other entitlement for use by one or more public agencies. The statutory definition is augmented
14 by the State CEQA Guidelines, which define a project as the whole of an action, which has a
15 potential for resulting in either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably
16 foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment. (See Tuolumne County Citizens for
17 Responsible Growth. Inc. v. City ofSonora (2007) 155 Cal.App.4* 1214, 1222.) This includes all
18 phases of a project that are reasonably foreseeable, and all related projects that are directly linked
19 to the project. (See State CEQA Guidelines, § 15378.)
20 19. A strong presumption in favor of requiring preparation of an Environmental
21 Impact Report (EIR) is built into CEQA that is reflected in what is known as the "fair argumenf
22 standard, imder which an agency must prepare an EIR whenever substantial evidence in the
23 record supports a fair argument that a project may have a significant effect on the environment.
24 (See No Oil, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (1974) 13 Cal.3d 68, 75, 82.)
25 20. The EIR is the primary means of achieving the Legislature's considered
26 declaration that it is the policy of this state to take all actions necessary to protect, rehabilitate,
27 and enhance the environmental quality of the state. The EIR is therefore the heart of CEQA. An
28 EIR is an environmental alarm bell whose purpose it is to alert the public and its responsible
{00054352;2 } -5-
PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE
 1 officials to environmental changes before they have reached ecological points of no retum.
2 (Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of University of California (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376,
3 392.)
4 21. Under CEQA and the State CEQA Guidehnes, if a project is not exempt and may
5 cause a significant effect on the environment, the agency must prepare an EIR. (Public Resources
6 Code, §§ 21100, 21151; 14 Cal. Code Regs., § 15064(a)(1), (f)(1).) A significant effect on the
7 environment is defined as a substantial or potentially substantial adverse change in the
8 envirpnmenL (Public Resources Code, § 21068; 14 Cal. Code Regs., § 15382.) A project "may"
9 have a significant effect on the environment iftiiereis a "reasonable probability" that it will result
10 ina significant impact. (No Oil Inc. v. City ofLos Angeles (1974) 13 Cal.3d 68, 83 n. 16.) This
11 standard sets a "low threshold" for preparation of an EIR. {Pocket Protectors v. City of
12 Sacramento (2004) 124 Cal.App.4* 903, 928.)
13 22. Despite being notified of its inadequate CEQA review, the City, on August 9,
14 2021, as lead agency under CEQA for the Project, adopted a resolution whereby it approved the
15 Project. The City erroneously determined that the Project was exempt and/or not subject to
16 CEQA.
17 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
18 (Violation of the California Environmental Quality Act)
19 23. The Coalition re-alleges and incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs of
20 this Petition.
21 24. "[T]he legislature intended [CEQA] to be interpreted in such manner as to afford
22 the fullest possible protection to the environment within the reasonable scope of the statutory
23 language." (City ofSan Diego v. Board ofTrustees of the California State University (2015) 61
24 Cal.4th 945, 963.) When complying with CEQA, a lead agency must proceed in the manner
25 required by law, and its factual determinations must be supported by substantial evidence.
26 25. The City claimed the Project is exemptfiromCEQA for various reasons. However,
27 the cited reasons are inapplicable and/or extraordinary circumstances except the Project from any
28 CEQA exemption. Thus, the Project is not exemptfi'omCEQA.
{00054352:2 } -6-
PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE
 1 26. The City abused its discretion in numerous ways, such as by relying on a
2 procedurally and substantivelyflawedCEQA analysis, by improperly determiningtiiatthe Project
3 is exempt fiom CEQA review, and by approving a project that has not yet undergone adequate
4 CEQA review.
5 27. As a result of the City's violation of CEQA, the Coalition has been harmed insofar
6 as the Coalition, its members, other members of the public, and the responsible decision-makers
7 were not fully informed about the potential adverse environmental impacts of the Project, and
8 insofar as the Coalition, its members, and other members ofthe public did not have an
9 opportunity to participate meaningfully in the analysis of such impacts before approval of the
10 Project.
11 28. The inadequacies alleged above are prejudicial and require the City's CEQA
12 actions and approval of the Project to be rescinded until full environmental review in compliance
13 with CEQA is conducted. The City's actions constitute a prejudicial abuse of discretion because
14 they failed to proceed in the manner required by law and because their conclusions are not
15 supported by substantial evidence. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21168.5.)
16 PRAYER FOR RELIEF
17 WHEREFORE, the Coalition prays for relief as follows:
18 1. For interlocutory and permanent injunctive relief restraining the City firom taking
19 any action to carry out the Project;
20 2. For a peremptory writ ofmandate commanding that the City (1) set aside and
21 vacate its approvals relating to the Project and the CEQA exemptions; and (2) refrain from
22 granting any further approvals or permits for the Project unless and until the City complies fully
23 with the requirements of CEQA;
24 3. For costs of suit;
25 4. For attomey fees pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5; and
26 5. For such other and fiirther relief as the Court may deem just and proper.
27
28
{00054352;2 ) -7-
PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE
 1 Dated: Septembe/i^2021 MITCHELL CHADWICK LLP
2

3 By: _
'GVBRAIDENTHADWICK
4 JOHN T. WHEAT
Attorneys for Petitioner
5 COALITION FOR COMPASSION and
MICHAEL MALINOWSKI
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
{00054352;2 ) - 8

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE

 1 VERIFICATION
2 The matters in this Petition are tme of my ovm knowledge, except as to the matters which
are therein stated on my belief, and as to those matters I believe them to be tme. In accordance
3 with Cal. Code of Civil Procedure section 446, this Petition is verified by the attomey of record
because the Coalition for Compassion and its members Michael Malinowski are absentfromthe
4 county where I have my office.
5 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Califomia that the foregoing is
tme and correct.
6
7
8
h Chadwick
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
{00054352;2 }

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE

 1 Exhibit A
Notice of Commencement of Action
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
{00054352;2 } - 10 -
PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE
 MITCHELL
CHADWICK

September 14,2021

VIA Certified Mail and Email (CIerk(@CityofSacramento.org)

City Clerk
City of Sacramento
915 I Street
New City Hall
Sacramento, CA 95814

RE: Notice of Commencement of Action

To Whom It May Concern:

I represent the Coalition for Compassion and Michael Malinowski and am sending this
Notice of Commencement of Action on my clients' behalf

Please be advised that an action is to be commenced by my clients in Sacramento County

Superior Court against your agency. The action will challenge your agency's approval of the
2021 Master/Comprehensive Siting Plan to Address Homelessness (Project), which was
approved on or around August 9, 2021, on the groimds that the approval violated the Califomia
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Public Resources Code, §21000 et seq.)

If you have any questions, please feelfreeto contact me.

Sincerely,

MITCHELL CHADWICK LLP

G. Braiden Chadwick

Enclosure:

Proof of Service

3001{b9B949si?P)Court, Suite 120 - Roseville, CA 95661 • Ph. 916.462.8888 • Fax 916.788.0290 • www.mitchellchadwick.com
 PROOF OF SERVICE
I

CASE NAME: COALITION FOR COMPASSION and MICHAEL MALINOWSKI v. CITY OF

SACRAMENTO, etal
CASENO.:

I, Cindy Cmtas Pilon, declare as follows:

I am over the age of 18 years and not a party to the within action. My business address is
3001 Lava Ridge Court, Suite 120, Roseville, Califomia 95661.

On September 15,2021,1 served the following document(s):

NOTICE OF COMMENCEMENT OF ACTION

X by mail on the following party(ies) by placing a tme copy thereof enclosed in a
10 sealed envelope for mailing in the United States mail, postage prepaid, at
Roseville, Califomia.
11
o by messenger delivery on the following party(ies) by providing them to a
o 12
r professional messenger service for same day personal service.
> H
< 13
> n
X
m
r- by overnight delivery on the following party(ies) by placing a tme copy thereof
a r- 14
o
m n
enclosed in a sealed envelope, with delivery fees paid or provided for, addressed
n nD as set forth below. The courier picks up that same day for delivery the following
15 business day.
O
r 16
H r
by electronic service: I caused a copy of the document(s) to be sendfromemail
13
tn 17 address cpilon(a),mitchellchadwick.com to the persons at the email addresses set
fo
o forth below.
18
Citv Clerk.
19 Citv of Sacramento
20 (via Electronic and U.S. Mail -
Certified)
21 915 I Stireet
New City Hall
22 Sacramento, CA 95814
23 Clerk(5}CitvofSacramento.org

24 I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is tme and correct and that this
document was executed on September 15,2021.
25
26
Cindy Cintas Pilon
27

28
{00054374; I )

Proof of Service
 1 Exhibit B
Notice of Action to Attorney General
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
{00054352;2 } - U
PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE
 1 G. BRAIDEN CHADWICK, Bar No. 227536
bchadwick(^mitchellchadwick.com
2 JOHN T. WHEAT, Bar No. 281398
jwheat(^mitchellchadwick.com
3 Mitchell Chadwick LLP
3001 Lava Ridge Ct. #120
4 Roseville, Califomia 95661
Telephone: (916)462-8888
5 Facsimile: (916) 788.0290
6
Attomeys fdr Petitioner
7 COALITION FOR COMPASSION and MICHAEL
MALINOWSKI
8
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
9
COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
10
11
COALITION FOR COMPASSION and Case No.
12 MICHAEL MALINOWSKI, Judge:
13 Petitioner, NOTICE TO ATTORNEY GENERAL
14
15 CITY OF SACRAMENTO; and DOES 1-
100, inclusive.
16
Respondents
17
18
19 DOES 101-200, inclusive.

20 Respondents,
Defendants, and Real
21 Parties in Interest

22
23
24 To the Attorney General of the State of California

25 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE, under Public Resources Code, § 21167.7 and Code of Civil Procedure

26 § 388, that on September 15,2021, the Coalition for Compassion and Michael Malinowski filed a

27 petition for writ of mandate against the City of Sacramento in Sacramento Coimty Superior Court.

28 The petition alleges that the City of Sacramento violated the California Environmental Quality

{00054356; 1} - 1 -

NOTICE OF PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE

 1 Act (CEQA) by erroneously deeming its approval of the Master/Comprehensive Siting Plan to
2 Address Homelessness as exempt or otherwise not subject to CEQA. A copy of the petition is
3 attached to this notice.
4
5
Dated: September MITCHELL CHADWICK LLP
6
7
By:
8 'O.^BRAIDEN CHADWICK
JOHN T. WHEAT
9 Attomeys for Petitioner
COALITION FOR COMPASSION and
10 MICHAEL MALINOWSKI
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
{00054356; I } -2-
NOTICE OF PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE
 1 Exhibit C
Election to Prepare Administrative Record
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
{00054352;2} -12
PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE
 1 G. BRAIDEN CHADWICK, Bar No. 227536
bchadwick(§mitchellchadwick.com
2 JOHN T. WHEAT, Bar No. 281398
jwheat(^mitchellchadwick.com
3 Mitchell Chadwick LLP
3001 Lava Ridge CL #120
4 Roseville, Califomia 95661
Telephone: (916)462-8888
5 Facsimile: (916)788.0290
6
Attomeys for Petitioner
7 COALITION FOR COMPASSION and MICHAEL
MALINOWSKI
8
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
9
COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
10
11
COALITION FOR COMPASSION and Case No.
12 MICHAEL MALINOWSKI, Judge:
13 Petitioner, NOTICE OF PETITIONERS' ELECTION
TO PREPARE RECORD OF
14 V. PROCEEDINGS
15 CITY OF SACRAMENTO; and DOES 1-
100, inclusive.
16
Respondents
17
18
19 DOES 101-200, inclusive,

20 Respondents,
Defendants, and Real
21 Parties in Interest

22
23
24
25 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE, under Public Resources Code, § 21167.6, tiie Coalition for

26 Compassion and Michael Malinowski elect to prepare the record of City of Sacramento's

27 proceedings relating to this action. Petitioners therefore request that Respondents assemble the

28 items that constitute the administrative record and notify Petitioners' attomeys of record in
{00054357;! } . 1 _

ELECTION TO PREPARE ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD

 1 writing when the items are available for inspection and photocopying. To the extent necessary to
2 facilitate Respondents' prompt respoiise to this notice. Petitioners request should be deemed a
3 request to inspect public records under the Califomia Public Records Act.
4 Petitioners reserve the right to request that Respondents prepare ariy portion oftiiatrecord
5 that is not otherwise reasonably available exceptfromone or more of Respondents. However,
6 nothing in this notice shall be constmed as Petitioners' express or implied agreement to make any
7 payment to Respondents for their assembly of the items that constitutetiieadministrative record
8 or for any other expense incurred by Respondents in providing Petitioners with access to the
9 items constituting the record. In the absence of Petitioners' express written acknowledgement to
10 the contrary, this notice asks Respondents to do nothing more thari provide access to the items
11 constituting the record.
12
Dated: September/ff2021 MITCHELL CHADWICK LLP
13
14
15 jIf'BKAIDEN CHADWICK
JOHN T. WHEAT
16 Attorneys for Petitioner
COALITION FOR COMPASSION and
17 MICHAEL MALINOWSKI
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
{00054357;! } -2
ELECTION TO PREPARE ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD
 1 Exhibit D
Comment Letter From Coalition for Compassion
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
{00054352.2 } - 13 -
PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE
 COAUnONFOR COMPASSION
August 10,2021

RE: August 10,2021 City Council Agenda Item No. 1: City of Sacramento Master Siting
Plan to Address Homelessness

Dear Sacramento City Council and Mayor,

This letter is sent on behalf of the Coalition of Compassion. Your plan to approve the City of
Sacramento Master Siting Plan to Address Homelessness (Plan) is extremely flawed, dangerous
to those experiencing homelessness, unfair to disadvantaged residents and businesses that will
have shelters placed across the street from them, disproportionately burdens neighborhoods that
are already disadvantaged, and fails to comply with the Callfomia Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA). Thus, the Plan must not be passed.

I. Siting individuals experiencing homelessness under freeways is dangerous to their health.

The Plan includes siting numerous individuals experiencing homelessness in close proximity to
freeways (indeed, some sites are directly adjacent to freeways). This poses an extreme health risk
to the individuals that the City plans to have stay there. This shows utter disregard for the health
and wellbeing of these individuals that are already compromised in terms of healthcare and
wellbeing

The Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District (SMAQMD) and Califomia Air
Resources Board (CARB) have repeatedly gone on record stating that new land uses, such as
residential uses, for sensitive populations such as children, the elderly, and those with pre-
existing chronic conditions such as heart disease and diabetes (such as is the case with many
people experiencing homelessness), "not be sited within 500 feet of a roadway with 100,000
vehicles per day." Average daily traffic on State Highway 50 between 18* Street and 26* Street
is 246,000 to 258,000 vehicles.' That is, the traffic in the area where the Plan intends to house
approximately 800 individuals is more than double the number that CARB considers too high
for residential uses.

As CARB has demonstrated, "vehicle traffic generates fine particulate matter, including metallic
constituents, which is strongly associated with asthma, blood pressure increases, cognitive
decline, stroke, and death from heart attack." (See attached Letter at p. 1.) How can the City in
good conscience plan to send the poorest among us, individuals with compromised health, and
in-need to such sites, knowing the risks associated with such a location. This is particularly true
because the planned shelters will not include critical health and safety safeguards such as
advanced air filtration systems to reduce exposure to particulate matter and toxic air
contaminants. Nobody should be encouraged to live under a freeway. Yet the largest
concentrated site (800 individuals per the Plan) will be doing just that. How is this equitable?

(See http://vvww.dot.ca.gov/trafficops/census/docs/2015 aadt volumes.pdf).

Why is it that the City thinks it is okay to force these individuals into a situation where there
health will be further compromised?

City leaders should be ashamed for thinking that individuals experiencing homelessness can just
be tucked under a freeway somewhere, "out of sight, out of mind," and forced to breathe in the
fine particulate matter, including metallic constituents, and diesel exhaust. Again, no site should
be placed adjacent to or under a high-trafficked freeway. Doing so goes against expert agency
guidance and shows complete disregard for the health and welfare of the individuals
experiencing homelessness.

n. Sites should not be placed in already-disadvantaged neighborhoods.

Although not surprising, considering the City's typical "NIMBY" attitude that protects the
wealthy and furthet burdens the disadvantaged neighborhoods, the Plan primarily proposes sites
in areas that are already struggling and have been neglected by the City. A review of the Plan's
Figure 1: Priority Sites - Location within Council Districts clearly shows the "have's and have
nots" of Sacramento.

Does East Sacramento include any priority sites? Very clearly, no.

Does the Pocket neighborhood include any priority sites? Again, clearly, no.

These are not outliers. The pattem of siting shelters in disadvantaged (and often residential
neighborhoods) is consistent.

In contrast, take for example the W/X corridor. Not really Land Park, not really Midtown, not
really Central Business District. The W/X corridor is designated a disadvantaged corridor by
local, state, and federal metrics. Indeed, almost the entire W/X corridor has been designated as
an Opportunity Zone and also as a Promise Zone—designations reserved specifically for
neighborhoods that are disadvantaged economically and have large minority populations.

According to the bourgeois attitudes reflected in the Plan, this creates the perfect "no man's"
land to site more than a thousand individuals. The corridor already has multiple existing sites:
Front Street (120 people), W/6* Street (300 people), and 29* / X Street Navigation Center (200
people). The combined existing sites have an annual capacity of 620 people. To that, the Plan
proposes adding 800 more! That would result in a total of 1,420 individuals experiencing
homelessness along a single, already-disadvantaged corridor.

Aside from the dire health impacts of siting 1,420 individuals adjacent to a busy freeway—in
complete disregard of expert agency recommendations—the concept of further burdening an
already-disadvantaged neighborhood with 1,420 individuals in great material need is disgraceful.
No other section of the City is asked to take on such a burden. Indeed, the wealthiest
neighborhoods are not asked to take-on even a single individual experiencing homelessness.
How does that make any sense? You speak of equity when you campaign and raise funds, but
your words are obviously hollow. It should not be a surprise (you are politicians, after all), but
considering your rhetoric and the promises you all tend to make, we thought you might do better.

Page 2 of6
What are you going to do forthe local businesses in these already-disadvantaged neighborhoods?
What are yoii going to say to the family that is barely scraping-by to make ends meet, that now
lives across the street from more than 1,000 people that are also desperately in need, many of
whom stmggle with mental stability and drug addiction? Are any of the council-members that
vote for this Plan going to be living across the street from a site? Or is it only the peasants that
must do so? Don't worry, you won't have to see these struggling neighborhoods become further
burdened while you go home to your far-away enclaves.

Again, these sites should not be placed in already-disadvantaged neighborhoods, particularly

disadvantaged residential neighborhoods.

IIL The City has failed to comply with CEQA.

The agenda for the Plan states that the Plan is exempt from CEQA under CEQA Guidelines
sections 15269(c) (actions necessary to mitigate an emergency) and 15061(b)(3) (common sense
exemption), and Government Code 65660(b) (low barrier navigation centers). These exemptions
are largely inapplicable. Further CEQA analysis is reqiiired.

First, CEQA Guidelines sectipn 15269(c) is wholly inapplicable. The exemption applies only for
actual emergencies. This is apparently the slowest-moving emergency of all time. Homelessness
is not new. Indeed, this problem has been ongoing and growing for years. But there is not a
sudden emergency being faced that warrants complete avoidance of CEQA analysis. This shows
blatant disregard for CEQA's mandates that public agencies err on the site of environmental
disclosure, analysis, and protection. "CEQA is a comprehensive scheme designed to provide
long-term protection to the environment. [Citation.]... CEQA is to be interpreted 'to afford the
fullest possible protection to the environment within the reasonable scope of the statutory
language.' " (Mountain Lion Foundation v. Fish & Game Com. (1997) 16 Cal.4th 105, 112.)

Under CEQA, "'Emergency' means a sudden, unexpected occurrence, involving a clear and
imminent danger, demanding immediate action to prevent or mitigate loss of, or damage to, life,
health, property, or essential public services. 'Emergency' includes such occurrences as fire,
flood, earthquake, or other soil or geologic movements, as well as such occurrences as riot,
accident, or sabotage." (Public Resources Code, § 21060.3.) This definition "limits an
emergency to an 'occurt'ence,' not a condition, and ... the occurrence must involve a 'clear and
imminent danger, demanding immediate action.' " (Western Municipal Water District of
Riverside County v. Superior Court (1986) 187 Cal.App.3d 1104, 1111.) Again, there is not a
"sudden, unexpected occurrence" of homelessness at the City's doorstep.

The City has not provided any why the time to undertake environmental review would create an
immediate risk to the public health, safety, or welfare. Or at least, a risk beyond that which has
existed for many, many years. The City's use of an emergency exemption for a problem that is
neither new, nor sudden, is simply an attempt to avoid getting public input, properly disclosing
impacts, and skirting its responsibilities to the public. This is a violation of CEQA.

Second, CEQA Guidelines section 15061(b)(3) (common sense exemption) is also inapplicable.
The exernption only applies " i f it can be seen with a certainty that there is no possibility that the
activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment." (14 Cal. Code Regs., §

Page 3 of 6
15061(b)(3).) There is absolutely no "certainty" that there is "no possibility" that the Plan will
avoid all significant effects on the environment. Further, the City has the burden of
demonstrating that this exemption applies. (See Muzzy Ranch Co. v. Solano County Airport Land
Use Comm 'n (2007) 41 Cal.4* 372, 386.) The City has not met this burden.

Indeed, there are very real risks of significant environmental effects as a result of the Plan. For
example, there is very real risk of significant noise effects from congregating numerous
individuals in close quarters - often with no hard walls to lessen the noise impacts. Placing
hundreds of individuals (who may be outside for the majority of their time on the site) across
from existing residences, could have significant noise effects. The City cannot abdicate its
responsibilities to analyze this impact.

There are also risks of significantly exacerbating air quality emissions Although many of the
individuals experiencing homelessness may not have vehicles, there is a large portion that live in
their vehicles, many of which are older models and have high emissions. Campers parked in safe
ground parking lots, running their motors for heat and electricity will be idling, spewing
particulates into nearby neighborhoods, exacerbating air pollution (particularly in areas adjacent
to existingfreeways).This is a potentially sigiiificant environmental effect. Further, there will be
significant effects on the health of the individuals being placed in these sites adjacent to freeways
(as discussed above).

There are also risks that the Plan will cause an environmental effect via urban decay.
Concentrating hundreds (sometimes more than 1,000) of individuals experiencing homelessness
in a single commercial corridor, particularly corridors that are alrieady disadvantaged will have
dire effects on the commercial viability of the neighborhood. It places burdens on already-
struggling businesses that may not be surmountable. Businesses will close, and are unlikely to be
replaced by other businesses. Putting neighborhoods on a downward trajectory. More and more
vacant storefronts will be present, creating urban blight and corresponding significant aesthetic
impacts. Further, the aesthetic impacts of placing huge tent structures, old motor homes, and tiny
homes in areas have not been analyzed. These could potentially cause significant aesthetic
effects.

Finally, Government Code section 65660(b) (low barrier navigation centers) does not cover all of
the sites. Many of the sites proposed in the Plan are not low barrier navigation centers. Further,
the exemption is only allowed in areas where there is a "use by right" as defined in Section
65583.2(1).

As explained in that section:

(i) For purposes of this section and Section 65583 , the phrase "use by right" shall mean that the
local government's review of the owner-occupied or multifamily residential use may not require
a conditional use permit, planned unit development permit, or other discretionary local
govemment review or approval that would constitute a "project" for purposes of Division 13
(commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code . Any subdivision of the sites
shall be subject to all laws, including, but not limited to, the local government ordinance
implementing the Subdivision Map Act. A local ordinance may provide that "use by right" does
not exempt the use from design review. However, that design review shall not constitute a

Page 4 of 6
"project" for purposes of Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources
Code . Use by right for all rental multifamily residential housing shall be provided in
accordance with subdivision (f) of Section 65589.5.

There is no indication that the sites referenced in the Plan comply with this definition of "use by
right." Indeed, it appears that many of them do not qualify under this definition.

For all of these reasons, the Plan is not exempt from CEQA, and further CEQA analysis is
required.

Sincerely,

The Coalition for Compassion

Page 5 of 6
ofe
SACRAMENTO METROPOLITAN

AIR QUALITY
MANAGEMENT DISTRICT

SENT VIA E-MAIL ONLY

City of Sacramento
Community Development Department
Environmental Planning Services
300 Richards Blvd., 3"* Floor
Sacramento, CA 95811

RE:

Dear

Thank you for providing the project routing form for the to the Sacramento
Metropolitan Air Quality Management District (SMAQMD) for review. The project Is a request to

parking development standards. SMAQMD staff comments on the project follow.

.The
California Air Resources Board recommends that new land uses, such as residential uses, for sensitive
populations such as children, the elderly, and those with pre-existing chronic conditions such as heart
disease and diabetes, not be sited within 500 feet of a roadway with 100,000 vehicles per day. Average
daily traffic on State Highway 50 at 15»Vl6* Street is 246,000 to 258,000 vehicles.^ Vehicle traffic
generates fine particulate matter, including metallic constituents, which is strongly associated with
asthma, blood pressure increases, cognitive decline, stroke, and death from heart attack. To protect the
future residents ofthe apartments from excessive exposure to particulate matter, SMAQMD
recommends the following reduction measures be considered:
• Install enhanced indoor air filtration to reduce residents' exposure to particulate matter and
toxic air contaminants. The filtration for the heating, ventilation and air conditioning system
(HVAC) should be certified by the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-
Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) and equivalent to or greater than that provided by MERV13
filters (as defined by ASHRAE standard 52.2). A licensed mechanical engineer, or an individual
authorized by California Business and Professions Code Sections 6700-6799 to design
mechanical ventilation systems, should be consulted. Building permit documents should
incorporate all designs and details necessary for the construction ofthe enhanced ventilation
system. The ventilation systems installed should be properly maintained as specified by the
manufacturer. A fixed notice should be placed on the filter compartment door of each
ventilation unit advising that MERV 13 (or greater) filters shall be used per local law.

^ http://www.dot.ca.eov/trafficops/census/docs/2015 aadt volumes.pdf

 • Plant a vegetative barrier between the major roadway and the receptors. The vegetative barrier
should consist of tree species with year-round foliage. Suggested tree species and planting
practices are listed in the SMAQMD's SMAQMD's Landscaping Guidance for Improvinq Air Quality
near Roadways.

Construction
All projects are subject to SMAQMD rules at the time of construction. Specific rules that may relate to
construction activities are attached. A complete listing of current rules is available at
www.airqualitv.org or by calling 916-874-4800.

Please contact me at 916-874-4816 [email protected] ifyou have any questions regarding these
recommendations.

Sincerely,

Teri Duarte, MPH Planner/Analyst

Attachment

Cc: PaulPhilley