Tag: Sacramento City Council

Sac City Council 2025-05-13

Dan AllisonLeave a comment

The Sacramento City Council will meet Tuesday, May 13, 2025 (today!) at 5:00 PM. There are two items that might be of interest to transportation advocates.

Item 02 on the consent calendar is ‘Approve Criteria and Guidance to Accommodate Active Transportation in Work Zones Policy’. There is a staff report, and the policy itself. Though items on the consent calendar are not expected to be controversial, and will only be discussed by council if a council members pulls it from consent calendar, this is nevertheless worth supporting. This policy has been delayed for years. It is not perfect, but it is an immense improvement over existing policy and practice.

Item 09 on the agenda is ‘Fiscal Year (FY) 2025/26 Proposed Budget Overview‘. The budget should reflect the priorities of citizens in Sacramento, but it only partially does.

quick build at SacCouncil 2025-03-25

Dan Allison4 Comments

The Sacramento City Council meeting on Tuesday, March 25, 2025 (agenda), starting at 5:00 PM (not the 2:00 meeting) will consider a proposed quick build program. Agenda item 21 is ‘Transportation Safety Initiative: Establish Positions, Establish Quick Build Capital Improvement Project, and Suspend Competitive Bidding and Approve an Alternative Procurement Process to Install Signing and Striping and Quick Build Improvements (Two-Thirds Vote Required)‘.

This quick build proposal is worth supporting, whether in person at the council meeting, or ahead of time using the eComment capability on the Upcoming Meeting Materials page. Transportation advocates have been asking for a quick build program (also called tactical urbanism, though they are subtly different) for years. When Councilmember Caity Maple and others proposed an emergency declaration over traffic violence, advocates pushed for quick build to be the top element of that proposal. The city has done a few such projects, such as the closure of a block of 2nd Avenue at Broadway and 34th Street to increase safety for bicyclists and simplify complex intersections. Photo below. But this new program would greatly accelerate the implementation of quick build projects. Some will be at the location of major crashes, while others will be at locations where crashes might be expected and where prior city neglect of lower income neighborhoods has resulted in more unsafe walking and bicycling.

photo of 2nd Ave and Broadway delineators
Sac_2nd-Ave-Broadway_delineators

The program would have a Traffic Safety Team staff of six FTE (full time equivalent), paid with funds from existing budget categories in Public Works. The program would suspend competitive bidding requirements so that projects could be implemented quickly.

The Vision Zero or Safe Systems approach to roadway safety is to immediately change the street design with temporary fixes that slow or channelize traffic, and then to eventually replace these with permanent design changes. The Street Design Standards update (category: Street Design Standards) and Strong SacTown (tag: Street Design Standards), the Active Transportation Plan, Neighborhood Connections and Streets for People Active Transportation Network, and many other efforts align with the quick build program. Most of the traffic calming measures in Neighborhood Connections (SacCity Neighborhood Connections) and and many of the traffic calming measures in Streets for People Active Transportation Network visual gallery – pedestrian and visual gallery – bikeway can also be implemented in quick build, as the photo below shows, a temporary curb extension with vertical delineators.

photo of Land Park Dr & 8th Ave curb extension
Land Park Dr & 8th Ave curb extension

The SacATC 2024 Annual Report is also on the agenda, item 1 on the consent agenda. It is not expected to be controversial, but it would be nice if a couple of people spoke in support, just to remind council that advocates are interested and supportive.

SacCity Council to consider extending Howard Chan

Dan Allison5 Comments

On the agenda for the Sacramento City Council for this Tuesday, December 10, is an extension of Howard Chan’s contract for one year, to December 31, 2025. Approval of an Amendment of the City Manager’s Employment Agreement

I am opposed to this extension. The city is in crisis, a crisis due to both the City Manager form of government, and to the individual in the position of City Manager. Both must end, as soon as possible. Extending Howard Chan for a year ensures that the crisis will continue, for at least a year.

What is the crisis? There is a budgetary crisis. The City Manager failed to see a reduction in tax income coming, and so there was a sudden need to balance the city budget by cutting critical programs, but failing to reduce excess staff. The budget crunch is now being used to justify all kinds poor decisions by city staff and city council. There is a homeless crisis. The City Manager has failed to follow the direction of council to address homelessness by opening more homeless shelters, specifically in every council district.

Most importantly, there is a traffic violence crisis. The rate of traffic crashes resulting in fatalities and severe injuries continues to escalate, putting Sacramento at or near the top of most dangerous cities in California. Yet Howard Chan has refused to allocate city general funds to address this issue, beyond the minimum necessary for grant matches. The grants are long term solutions, when what is also needed is immediate change to roadways, called quick build, at high risk intersections where the fatalities and severe injuries occur. Howard Chan has refused to fund this. The city is considering Declaring a State of Emergency Regarding Traffic Deaths. If Howard Chan had not resisted funding for real solutions for the last eight years, it is unlikely that we would need this emergency declaration. Not that we would not have traffic fatalities – Vision Zero has been a failure for many reasons – but the rate would likely be much less.

Howard Chan believes that the only solution to the public safety crisis is to add more police officers. This is a misunderstanding of public safety. Expenditures, and staff, should reflect actual threats to the public. In Sacramento, they do not. The number of people killed in traffic crashes is similar to the number of people killed by gun and knife violence. Traffic collisions increase, the police budget increases, but the police budget does nothing to address the problem.

Darrell Steinberg, in his ‘exit interview’ with Ryan Lillis earlier this week at New Helvetia Brewing said that a partial solution for the failure of the City Manager model would be to give the Mayor hire and fire authority over the City Manager, subject to review by the council. If this had been in place, we might already have a new city manager. Darrell said that he had a good relationship with Chan, but clearly the council does not, and Darrell acknowledged that the City Manager model is failing Sacramento.

What are the alternatives? The National League of Cities has a page: Cities 101 — Forms of Local Government, which outlines five forms of city governance. Sacramento does not have exactly any of these categories, but is closest to Council-Manager. Sacramento elects its mayor as a specific office, not a rotating selection. Most significantly, in Sacramento, the council actually has very little control over the manager. I believe we need something closer to the Mayor-Council model, where the city manager works for the council, which governs on behalf of the citizens. could a council-manager model work? Perhaps, but only with a strong council or mayor that is willing to stand up to the city manager and hold that person accountable.

Sacramento voters have twice rejected a strong mayor model, probably in part due to getting burned by Kevin Johnson who wanted to be a strong mayor. It seems unlikely that voters would support a strong mayor. What I want to see is a strong council model, where the council proactively directs the City Manager, and fires that person if they are not following direction. Something must change.

Our city is in crisis because we have a failed governance model, and the wrong person in the City Manager position. Rather than just extending the City Manager for a year, the council must come to terms with the crisis, and determine a solution. As quickly as possible.

this week 2024-09-16

Dan Allison1 Comment

Note: Don’t expect this to be a regular feature. I’ll do it when I can. Please see the calendar maintained by SacMoves Coalition, at https://sacmoves.org/events/.

Monday 16

Tuesday 17

  • Sacramento City Council meeting, 5:00 PM, likely will address emergency declaration for road safety introduced by Caity Maple, Mayor Darrell Steinberg, and Karina Talamantes; not noted on the agenda as of 2024-09-15

Wednesday 18

Thursday 19

Friday 20

Saturday 21

Sunday 22

SacATC Annual Report to Sac Council March 12

Dan AllisonLeave a comment

The 2023 Annual Report from the Sacramento Active Transportation Commission is agenda 5 for the Sacramento City Council on March 12, 2024, starting 5:00PM. Unfortunately, the item has been placed on the consent agenda. Every transportation advocate in Sacramento is disappointed that it is on consent, because we feel that the report deserves discussion by council. The report is critical to the future of active transportation in the city, and all the livability and safety benefits of active transportation, so the consent agenda minimizes its importance.

The public may comment on items on the consent agenda, both in eComment beforehand, and at the meeting. In-person comments are always weighted more than eComments, but if eComment is all you can do, please do! However, unless a council member pulls the item from consent, it will not be discussed by the council. If it were pulled from consent, I assume that City of Sacramento Transportation Planning Manager Jennifer Donlon Wyant and 2024 SacATC chair Arlete Hodel might present the report to the council.

To comment in person, you must submit a request to speak before the agenda item comes up, which will be very close to the beginning of the meeting at 5:00PM. Once the consent agenda comes up, it is not possible to submit a request. Speaker cards are on the back counter, to your left when you walk in to chambers, and the basket for cards is at the left front of chambers. Though you can of course comment on anything during the ‘items not on the agenda’ at the end of the meeting, it is much better if you can comment directly on the agenda item in question.

Even if you cannot comment, the Annual Report is well worth a read. The Sacramento Active Transportation Commission has shifted to a much more progressive and activist stance over the last two years, and the ten recommendations in the report (starting on page 8) should be implemented by the city. These are listed below, but read the document for supporting details.

  1. Increase Funding for Active Transportation Infrastructure Projects
  2. Develop a Citywide Safe Routes to School Program
  3. Expand Speed Management Programs
  4. Pilot an Electric Bike Library
  5. Promote E-Bike Incentives
  6. Create a Sacramento Quick-Build Bikeways Program
  7. Increase Bike Parking
  8. Re-establish Slow & Active Streets
  9. Finalize the Construction Detour Policy
  10. Develop an ATC Dashboard

If you are going to comment, I recommend that you pick one item of most importance to you, and comment on that. Personal perspectives are best, why the lack of these programs has harmed you, or why the implementation of these programs will benefit you.

photo of SacATC members

SacCity Council save the date for General Plan adoption

Dan AllisonLeave a comment

Adoption of the 2040 General Plan will likely be on the Sacramento Council on Tuesday, February 27, one month from now. Though the plan could be even better, and its success will depend on a number of documents to be finished after adoption, this is an innovative and forward-looking document, much better than the last one. I hope that you will speak in favor of adoption at this meeting. The Climate Action and Adaptation Plan, developed separately but supposed consistent with the general plan, will be adopted at the same time. The concepts of the Missing Middle Housing Project are also largely contained in the general plan. The documents that will be developed later include Streets for People Active Transportation Plan, Parking Management Plan, and Street Design Standards, and many others.

My previous posts on the 2040 General Plan are available in category ‘General Plan 2040‘.

Save the date – put it on your calendar now! It will likely be a 5:00PM meeting, though when the General Plan comes up for comment depends on what else is on the agenda.

I am expecting widespread support for the plan, from the public and council members, but nothing is guaranteed, and there are certainly forces for the status quo.

See you then! I will post more details when they become available. Many advocacy organizations will also be supporting the plan, so look to your own organizations for additional information.

Sac missing middle housing gets better

Dan Allison1 Comment

The Sacramento City Council will hear tonight (Tuesday, November 28, 2023, 5:00PM) on a recommendation to increase the floor area ratio (FAR) from 1 to 2 in areas within a half mile of frequent transit, and other improvements. The Missing Middle Housing program is part of the 2040 General Plan update. In October, staff brought missing middle housing to the council. Housing advocates led by House Sacramento suggested several improvements, and several council members spoke strongly in favor of improvements. See Sac missing middle housing project for background. So at the council meeting tonight, staff will be back with some of the recommended improvements. The documents are here: body of the staff report; table of public comments (the comments account for most of the size of the document, so the body will download much faster).

Public support for improved missing middle housing program policies and areas is critical to ensure that it will end up strong in the general plan. Though people opposed to better housing availability (NIMBYs) have so far not shown up to speak against it, they have been using their political power behind the scenes to ensure that housing remains scarce (which increases their own property values) and that their neighborhood does not change nor include people who have been excluded from housing and opportunity. Of course these Missing Middle Housing program elements will only take effect if they are not weakened when the 2040 General Plan is adopted, perhaps late next year. So housing advocates will need to remain vigilant.

Please see the House Sacramento Take Action page for information about providing public comment on the issue, and suggestions for your comments.

I believe that the public should support these changes. The general plan could be even better, by removing zoning completely, but this represents a huge improvement over both existing conditions and the earlier proposal.

  1. Floor area ratio (FAR) changed from 1 to 2 for all areas within a half mile of frequent transit service (which means if and when areas get better transit service, they can be similarly be allows greater housing density and variety). See map below (pdf). While the area changed is not huge, it represents a huge opportunity for more housing along light rail and SacRT bus route 1 along Stockton.
  2. The cap on dwelling per parcel are removed. Use of FAR will provide the appropriate level of control without reference to number of units. The cap on dwelling is a continuation of the exclusionary housing policies of the past.
  3. Creation of a sliding FAR scale. To be honest, I don’t quite understand this policy, but I trust to House Sacramento that it is useful.
map of areas with FAR increased to 2 within half mile of frequent transit

SacATC recommendations supported by city council

Dan AllisonLeave a comment

Agenda item 11 on the Sacramento City Council agenda last night (2023-08-29) was ‘Active Transportation Commission 2022 Annual Report Regarding the Status of Walking and Bicycling in the City of Sacramento and Activities of the Commission‘. Twenty members of the public and organizations spoke in support of the recommendations, no one against, and all council members spoke in support. Comments of both the public and council focused on the need for more funding to make infrastructure changes to our roadways, in order to fix the unsafe roadway network we have.

I have written twice before about the SacATC recommendations: support SacATC status on walking/biking (now!) and SacATC meeting Jan 19 with report, Northgate, Freeport. I recommend you read the full set of recommendations. Do they go far enough? No. Do they miss some important issues? Yes. But these recommendations are beyond anything that the city has considered before, and deserve the support of everyone in the city (and county and region).

Several representative from Land Park talked about how much they loved the slow streets in the park, and how disappointed they were when the city nixed them. They want them back! So do a number of other speakers. Grace Bartley talked about how she was hit by a driver while riding her bike to McClatchy High on Freeport, probably the most impactful speaker of the evening. Several speakers mentioned the imperative to control motor vehicle speeds, by whatever means necessary. (The ultimate solution to this issue is not any action of the city, but speed-limited motor vehicles.)

Eric Guerra mentioned again, as he has other times, that many parents seem to care about only their own children, once their children are safely dropped off at school, they speed away, endangering other people’s children. And some not ever their own children, encouraging their kids to run across the street at drop-off and pick-up. There was general agreement that there needs to be more money in next year’s budget for active transportation, though no one said what would be cut to accomplish that. SacATC had wanted their recommendations to go to the council for consideration in adopting this year’s budget, but a roadblock (intentional?) was thrown up by requiring that the report go first to the Personnel and Public Employees Committee, which meant that it did not come to the council until August. Katie Valenzuela suggested that Public Works come up with guidelines for citizen-initiated ‘tactical urbanism’ projects so that quick-builds can happen now, when the city does not have the funds or materials or personnel to complete in a timely manner. Jennifer Donlon Wyant was open to the idea, but I’m sure it would get nixed in Public Works. Darrell Steinberg talked about his proposal for a housing and transportation measure in 2024, that would provide some of the additional funding needed. This will be the topic of my next post.

I spoke along with the other 19 people, and my comments are below:

I strongly support all of the recommendations included in the 2022 report from the ATC to the city council. In particularly, I would like to address two of those, 3. Develop a Citywide Safe Routes to School Program, and 4. Finalize the Construction Detour Policy. 

I was the Safe Routes to School Coordinator for San Juan Unified for 10 years. Having that position funded through federal and ATC grants, and district funding, allowed the completion of many infrastructure project though collaboration with the City of Citrus Heights and Sacramento County. Most of these would not have occurred without the position. We also offered an extensive program of walking and bicycling education to students, and to the community. Civil Thread/WALKSacramento was a key partner in these efforts. I recommend that Sac City schools and the city create and fund a Safe Routes position to head an ongoing program in the support of students and their families.

It is long past time for a policy to accommodate walkers and bicyclists during construction projects. Nearly every construction project that has occurred in the central city has violated ADA guidelines, which require accommodation. City staff is on record as saying that walkers and bicyclists would be accommodated when it does not remove capacity from motor vehicles. So every project presents dangers to walkers and bicyclists. The are poorly signed and do not provide detectable barriers. I spend a lot of time reporting these violations, and over time many though not all of them are corrected. However, it should not be the responsibility of citizens to hold the city to ADA requirements. A progressive city would develop traffic plans that accommodate all travel modes, and would then inspect and enforce those plans.

Freeport Blvd to council today

Dan Allison3 Comments

The Freeport Blvd Transportation Plan is on the Sacramento City Council Agenda today. I failed to notice this, and submitted my comment late, so will have to attend in person or on Zoom. The item is on the consent calendar, so it is particularly important that people comment on the item so that the city recognizes there is significant opposition. You might also contact your council member to request that they remove the item (#6) from the consent calendar.

You may read my previous blog posts at https://gettingaroundsac.blog/category/city-of-sacramento/freeport-blvd/. You may read other’s comments on the agenda item at https://sacramento.granicusideas.com/meetings/4599-5pm-city-council-closed-session-begins-at-4-00-pm-updated-02-slash-21-slash-2023-at-1-30-p-dot-m/agenda_items/63eeca6df2b670376d010289-6-freeport-boulevard-transportation-plan-final-dr

Sacramento River Parkway next step November 13

Dan Allison1 Comment

existing pathway on Sacramento River levee

At the November 13 Sacramento City Council meeting, the next step for the Sacramento River Parkway will be on the agenda. This is just a small step. primarily to allocate funds to start property research, but it is an important next step. It may be controversial, with a small number of property owners in the Pocket and Little Pocket area opposed to public access to the publicly owned levees. The City Council meeting starts at 6:00PM, in the City Council Chambers of the City Hall at 915 I St. It is difficult to guess how much time will be taken with preceding agenda items, but item 19 might come up about 7:30PM.

19. American and Sacramento River Parkway Plans 2012 Implementation Program  Report # 2012-00851 Estimated Time:  45 Minutes
Location: Districts, 3, 4, and 7
Recommendation: Pass a Resolution: 1) approving the American and Sacramento River Parkway Plans 2012 Implementation Program; 2) establishing a new Capital Improvement Program (CIP) for the River Parkway Plans Implementation (L19016500) project; 3) transferring $100,000 from the Regional Park/Parkway Acquisition/ Development (L19003500) project to L19016500; 4) authorizing the City Manager, or City Manager’s designee to negotiate with public agencies and private parties for public access trail easements; and 5) authorizing the City Manager, or City Manager’s designee, to coordinate with local, state, and federal agencies regarding associated flood protection permit and easement compliance and removal of unpermitted encroachments. Contact: J.P. Tindell, Park Planning & Development Manager, (916) 808-1955, Parks and Recreation Department Item 19-American and Sacramento River Parkway Plans 2012 Implementation Program  (PDF-1689 KB)