Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Municipal Government topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Sacramento council approves consent calendar, continues surplus land item; discusses traffic grant, road safety and floodplain rules

2336639 · February 18, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The Sacramento City Council approved its consent calendar for items 1–14 with item 5 continued for further review. Councilmembers discussed a $400,000 traffic-safety grant, Fruitridge Road safety improvements, development concerns on a Panhandle project and amendments to the city—s floodplain ordinance affecting Natomas and Magpie Creek.

The Sacramento City Council on Thursday approved the consent calendar for agenda items 1 through 14, with item 5 withdrawn for continuation and further review.

The action, made by Vice Mayor Talamantes and seconded by Councilmember Kaplan, passed with all members present saying "aye," and no recorded noes or abstentions. Item 5, a surplus-land matter involving property behind Natomas High School and Discovery High School, was removed from the vote and will return to a future agenda for additional community input and staff follow-up.

The consent calendar included several items discussed briefly by councilmembers before the vote. Councilmember Maple highlighted a $400,000 grant from the California Office of Traffic Safety intended to reduce crash injuries and fatalities. "This is an amazing thing for Sacramento," said Councilmember Lainie Maple, noting the funding will also support school outreach and distracted-driving education for students.

Councilmember Kaplan said the Police Department has shifted to a data-driven approach under the grant, focusing on three-month analyses of high-injury networks and outreach to schools. "They—re now shifting to data driven decisions to look at the last 3 months so they can really see where high injury, networks are occurring in, real real time and real data," Kaplan said.

Separately, Councilmember Kaplan raised concerns about the Panhandle Project 105 credit agreement and new development adjacent to an existing neighborhood. Kaplan said a required four-foot elevation differential for sewer compliance has resulted in new retaining walls and six-foot fences that overlook long-established properties, creating community tension. She asked staff to explore whether planning and Department of Utilities (DOU) review could add setbacks or other mitigations when height differentials exceed a small threshold.

Councilmember Mayor Pro Tem Gatta also thanked staff and engineers working on Fruitridge Road safety improvements near Earl Warren Elementary, describing the project—s move into phase two, which includes a road diet, crosswalk improvements and other safety measures intended to reduce speeds and traffic volumes on that corridor between Power Inn and Stockton Boulevard.

On proposed amendments to the city—s floodplain management code, Neil Joyce, supervising engineer in the Department of Utilities, told the council that A99 flood zones are limited to North and South Natomas. Joyce said the changes do not alter flood-insurance availability and are intended to clarify existing rules for local floodplains such as Magpie Creek. "This should not affect flood insurance," Joyce said, adding that the amendments support continued participation in FEMA—s Community Rating System, which helps maintain discounted flood-insurance rates.

During public comment the council heard three speakers on varied matters. Kai On requested that the council follow up on a homicide investigation involving his father. Lance Hatfield criticized the city—s handling of homelessness services and specific navigation-center operations. A caller identified as Dia Good said she wished to file a complaint about a city employee alleged to have bullied or threatened subordinates and members of the public and asked staff to contact her for follow-up.

The council chair confirmed the consent calendar vote and proceeded to adjourn the meeting to reconvene later in the day for additional business.