Where do Sacramento City Council candidates stand on a Natomas homeless shelter?
A temporary homeless shelter for seniors for a slender, roughly 1-acre parcel in North Natomas has generated controversy since it was first proposed.
The choice of the site, a city-owned parcel at Arena Boulevard and El Centro Road in the Sundance Lake neighborhood, prompted a group of North Natomas residents to file legal action against the micro-community, alleging it violates city law. A Sacramento Superior Court judge denied a temporary restraining order on April 17 that residents hoped would stop construction.
Councilmember Lisa Kaplan is running for re-election in District 1, which includes the site and its surrounding neighborhoods. Her opponents are former FBI investigative specialist Jenn Chawla, who has been endorsed by Sacramento Mayor Kevin McCarty and Councilmember Karina Talamantes, and information technologist Venkat Mechineni.
The site’s location has divided Kaplan and the mayor. Kaplan has backed the residents who are suing the city. McCarty has said the micro-community has created “a lot of brouhaha.”
“A lot of false information (that’s) kind of thrown proverbial gas on the fire,” he added during a March town hall with The Sacramento Bee.
The Bee asked candidates in the District 1 race questions about position on the location of the micro-community at Arena Boulevard. In their answers, the candidates referenced nearby locations that include Sundance Park, which is less than 500 feet from the Arena Boulevard site, and an alternative site at the city’s corporate yard on Del Paso Road.
The answers have been edited for brevity and clarity.
Q: The mayor has constantly said that you supported the micro-community at that site. Did you help select the site? Can you explain your current opposition to it?
Kaplan: I am supportive of the micro-community concept. Studies have shown when you set it up the right way it can be cost-effective, and it can be extremely helpful. I don’t have many (city-owned properties in my district). Every single piece of city-owned property is already somewhat encumbered with a project on it. I brought up (Arena Boulevard) as “this is potentially a site that works” just like every council member should do.
There is an ordinance that was put into place in 2023 that says council members have no control over (selecting a site), and it’s only the city manager that does. So, if I get to select it, then it doesn’t mean I have a vote. Because saying the word “selected” means I have a vote, but I was on the losing end of that 2023 resolution, that took my vote away.
I did not hear from city staff that this site had been selected. I heard from a community member calling my office saying, “Why is the city out here? Why are people doing samples on this site?” I contacted (Director of Community Response) Brian Pedro, who said, “Yes, we are moving forward with the micro-community.” Then, I started asking questions.
And I found out (the following). The city wants to be the landlord. The city has never been a landlord with any of these projects or micro-communities. We always hire somebody.
The micro-community was basically sheds that the city said was going to be for women over 55, with no bathroom in the shed. It’s not a place that somebody who is elderly lives in, who needs to get up once or twice a night to use the restroom. That (person) then has to leave and go to the communal bathroom.
And also there was a 2021 ordinance passed by the city, when these micro-community concepts were coming up. The council laid out the parameters of where these should be.
The city is deciding to exempt itself, it’s within 500 feet of (Sundance Park), when you go by the legal definition, it’s property line to property line, that’s how you determine it. I asked the city attorney, “How can you continue to do this.” The city attorney said, “The city can exempt itself.”
If this land was privately owned, the city would not give them a permit. And I think that is a horribly, awful look for the city to say, “I’m going to hold you to one standard but I’m going to exempt myself, and I don’t have to follow the standards.”
And that was the conversation when I came out last year and was like, “I can’t support this.”
Now, several months later, (the city has a) dire budget deficit. Each of these sites cost about $3.5 to $4 million, and will cost over half a million dollars to operate yearly. We are going to have, when we approve all of our employee contracts, a potential deficit of over $70 million.
The (Department of Community Response) has over $13 million for four different sites, (spent) out of our general fund, $3.5 (million) of that is identified potentially for the (Arena Boulevard) site. But what’s up for discussion for budget cuts are approximately 45-plus parks maintenance individuals to be laid off, browning out our fire stations and cutting our public safety specialty units within the Sacramento Police Department.
I’m saying we should potentially pause, because we just expanded Roseville Road (micro-community site), and we know our shelters are not fully at capacity. Why don’t we pause and not expand? Because if you look at Oakland, (the city) just shut three of these (tiny home sites) down because they’ve been getting less money from the state to do this. Sacramento is getting less money from the state to do this.
Q: Do you support placing the micro-community at Arena Boulevard and El Centro Road?
Chawla: There are two sites available. Quite frankly, (the site at Arena Boulevard) is a better option. It is within proximity of actual shops and grocery stores. The corporate yard is literally inside the middle of a corporate yard. There is nothing. It’s not a feasible location, necessarily.
It doesn’t mean nothing can go there ever. If the goal is to get people from interim housing to permanent housing and — this is intended for a group of 40 individuals that are 55 plus on a fixed income — they’re committing 30% of their income toward this interim housing. They deserve access, and this site will provide them that access. If I’m told I have no choice but to propose a site between these two, this would be it.
Q: Do you support placing the micro-community at Arena Boulevard and El Centro Road?
Mechineni: No, I don’t support (the site at Arena Boulevard). That is within all the neighborhoods, right? I don’t support it because this has to be a little bit far away. We can have other parcels too. But we have to find out a different location, not that location. El Centro is developed, and the West Shore is developed. All these places are developed.
If you’re looking into North Natomas, we are seeing homeless people. So it is. We have to do something for them. We have to build the houses, but not in the residential area.
I’m not against completely to build (a micro-community), but at least we have to find out another place.
