[{"_1":2,"_99":-5,"_100":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6470833,"mediaKeyId","5778900-3be0003c80c059077c47b2ce594eec6e","parentId",5778900,"title","Council upholds Curtis Park Village plan: approves 31-house flex parcel, denies PUD amendment to remove multifamily site","audioSeconds",2199,"startMs",1317000,"endMs",3516000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=5778900-3be0003c80c059077c47b2ce594eec6e&start=1317&end=3516","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5778900-3be0003c80c059077c47b2ce594eec6e/thumbnail_1317000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6470833/Sacramento/Sacramento-County/California/Council-upholds-Curtis-Park-Village-plan-approves-31-house-flex-parcel-denies-PUD-amendment-to-remove-multifamily-site","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6470833-ffc27795fcd7cdee7cae9d58b3bc175f/orig.mp4?Expires=1771173655&Signature=gz7LVK9DQ784C~AdvtA~50bYLEgW60tUEo4~NlD1Ss4jQsX9I86lOdQj2jLy2XiPGVBi2PfxmER7BgUHx-ExivKUhP~-vQpDDxK0vPNpvG-OAcmSDpiHAhOxaC08vzVQAGPOwAn9p9gWY5o6tt5MJcfidJwRV0fOBG0yc-VDRxRIShc4vcLkeUEQR5CqIwjAzwoY4JWEgnPKtIhFajZp5ud~cxgTtn~3CFqqmFHg-QMU1M9kQ3PfSwHYfuk2h~ry6ffBQzhqVTmNlHKYkDMu6cToKb8IzsbOamvBsUquAhkRBUQDYS3gtOCf~UaxQhvQkVdXuVQwc-KULZCpnD3soQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","City of Sacramento","date","2025-09-09T00:00:00Z","article","The Sacramento City Council voted to approve staff recommendations on the Crocker Village Residential Development appeal, approving entitlements for a 31-unit single‑unit dwelling project on the 2.49‑acre “flex” parcel and denying the applicant’s requested amendment that would remove the remaining 2.37‑acre market‑rate multifamily designation from the Curtis Park Village planned unit development (PUD).

City planning staff had recommended approval of the flex‑parcel entitlements and denial of a PUD amendment that would eliminate the PUD’s multifamily housing designation, saying removal would conflict with the PUD’s vision and the city’s general plan policies. “This item is a request to develop 2 distinct vacant parcels within the Curtis Park Village planned unit development,” said Jenny Abbas of the Community Development Department during the staff presentation.

The appeal centered on whether the applicant’s proposed ‘‘court homes’’ (bungalow/cottage‑court form) are a form of multifamily housing permitted by the PUD and state law, or whether they should be treated as single‑unit dwellings disallowed on the multifamily parcel. Appellant counsel Daniel Friedman argued that court homes are allowed and that state rules such as the Housing Accountability Act limit the city’s ability to deny housing projects. “This is not about the provision of affordable housing,” Friedman told the council. “This is about building form.” He urged the council to view the court‑home form as consistent with the PUD and the 2040 General Plan’s “missing middle” objectives.

Staff and the city attorney said the city had reviewed the appellant’s claims and consulted with the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). Abby staff described HCD’s technical assistance, and the staff report — and an HCD letter included in the agenda packet — concluded the city’s denial of the PUD amendment was consistent with state housing law. The staff report summarized the PUD history and contended the remaining multifamily acreage had been intended for market‑rate multifamily and for transit‑oriented uses.

Public comment split along familiar lines. Neighbors who support preserving the multifamily designation and higher density near transit argued that multifamily housing better serves renters, students and lower‑income households and that the remaining PUD acreage was specifically planned for multifamily uses. Rob Weiner, a long‑time Curtis Park resident who works in affordable housing, told the council he opposed treating the court‑home design as equivalent to multifamily. Supporters of the applicant, including representatives of neighborhood homeowners and the developer, argued the proposed courtyard homes fit the PUD’s context and the general plan’s missing‑middle goals.

After public comment and rebuttal from the applicant, Councilmember Jennings moved to approve the staff recommendation; Vice Mayor Talamantes seconded. The council approved the staff recommendation on the motion.

The council record shows one recusal by Councilmember Kaplan for this item. The action result directs that the flex parcel may proceed with the approved entitlements and that the proposed PUD schematic planning amendment to eliminate the market‑rate multifamily designation is denied; staff will return with the appropriate findings and conditions in writing.

What happened next: The council’s decision preserves the PUD’s remaining market‑rate multifamily designation while allowing the flex parcel entitlements to proceed. The applicant has argued additional legal claims under Government Code section 65589.5 (the Housing Accountability Act) and related provisions; the staff packet and HCD correspondence are cited in the council record on why staff recommended denial of the PUD amendment.

Council action and what it means: The council’s approval of the flex parcel entitlements permits the developer to move forward with the 31 single‑unit dwellings approved for that parcel, subject to conditions listed in the staff report; the denial of the PUD amendment preserves the city’s prior multifamily allocation in the PUD. The matter may affect how court‑home building forms are interpreted under local PUD guidelines in future cases.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","City of Sacramento - 5:00 PM City Council [Supplemental Material - Updated 09/09/2025 @ 12:40 PM]","oneSentenceSummary","The Sacramento City Council voted to approve staff recommendations on the Crocker Village Residential Development appeal, approving entitlements for a 31‑unit single‑unit dwelling project on the 2.49‑acre flex parcel and denying the applicant’s request to remove the remaining market‑rate multifamily designation from the Curtis Park Village PUD.","taxTitle","Sacramento , Sacramento County, California","taxId",2896,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6470823,"City adopts classification and salary schedule updates; moves two fire classifications into unrepresented unit",159,1157000,1316000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5778900-3be0003c80c059077c47b2ce594eec6e&start=1157&end=1316","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5778900-3be0003c80c059077c47b2ce594eec6e/thumbnail_1157000.jpg","/articles/6470823/Sacramento/Sacramento-County/California/City-adopts-classification-and-salary-schedule-updates-moves-two-fire-classifications-into-unrepresented-unit","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6470823-745fbc3d39843fe963913dbbc67f0198/orig.mp4?Expires=1771173655&Signature=UyA3mtZzhOM3Qni3d2cqOW5G1YWuFo-RCfVTEuiqMOhW9Rhm9fbkJsagRQo48j3pg9vq1kyPS3op3UtjqhNMw3Zz9StMvnIFI7X1SIJprsBXJANmWlEYJ~3mp5XTRjRuBlGwWsVUwMr0LLHOOsuLa0gmsqvWVBmQUNwqgcYdaa6mVphudOJsjYiI02AUYD-rFcrwKR2OC5t8A4wvZKAk-HkIujqjmfK-~2a5PB4B0~7ZQ3eEiZ3sDf0lHe5-h51Nrfr-PSyef7Ljq0kdmrAigbmsnc3GZTtNTmO1hlEXqQdGnYBEbG9EFk2oI5Kobk4zMUrpP5zhVq8C3wsTEr~u3Q__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The City Council approved Item 21, a personnel and compensation package that included four components: moving two fire classifications (assistant chief and fire marshal) from a management bargaining unit to the city’s unrepresented unit; updating the employer‑employee relations policy; making a targeted compaction correction to a utilities operations superintendent classification; and adopting an updated citywide salary schedule required for CalPERS reporting and to implement a binding arbitration award.

Shelly Banks Robinson, the city’s human resources director, told council that the proposal contains “4 components” and that the changes do not alter pay or benefits for the affected fire classifications but clarify schedule language for shift and non‑shift command positions. The utilities compaction correction was described as intended to maintain an appropriate salary spread between supervisor and subordinate classes; Robinson said eight budgeted positions would be affected and that the cost was absorbed within the Department of Utilities’ operating budget.

Councilmember Maple moved the item; Councilmember Kaplan seconded. After brief comments of thanks to staff from Councilmember Dickinson and a roll call, the council approved the item (item passes 8‑0) and staff was directed to implement the changes and post the updated salary schedule as required for CalPERS transparency.

Why it matters: The action implements administrative reclassifications and a citywide salary schedule needed for retirement reporting and to reflect a recent binding arbitration award. The utilities salary correction is intended to improve recruitment by restoring a more typical pay spread between supervisor and subordinate roles.

Next steps: Human Resources and affected departments will implement the classifications and post the citywide salary schedule for CalPERS reporting; the utilities department will apply the corrected pay spread to the eight budgeted positions noted in the staff report.","Council approved changes to classifications, the employer‑employee relations policy updates, a compaction correction in utilities operations pay, and adoption of the citywide salary schedule to comply with CalPERS reporting and a binding arbitration award.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6470828,"Council renews ShotSpotter contract with annual effectiveness review after split public testimony",4572,1339000,5911000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5778900-3be0003c80c059077c47b2ce594eec6e&start=1339&end=5911","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5778900-3be0003c80c059077c47b2ce594eec6e/thumbnail_1339000.jpg","/articles/6470828/Sacramento/Sacramento-County/California/Council-renews-ShotSpotter-contract-with-annual-effectiveness-review-after-split-public-testimony","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6470828-066f65cc6d605fc55a93e72dee984794/orig.mp4?Expires=1771173655&Signature=XrtBQqmV5TBct6ypAQgKrX4tcdVByPceJe4pikmeA~S978oPvmHpIn-8Mih86fNsqnte1aB-N6QdpF9vgLdycLKelJrCjOaG68o4GUDsXfHwOysjCU6NtdWYKP18gI9jacIrFNUjjQpLQnv91eJNXIeTy~-vZap8LoLMMuEwzDqGvhJRjA4QVCAW-PenSsNHa3iEPDLYIDl1hM-xlY3eDlV~TKTdNMUntn1tCXUxAvClOykBNasysz6rksQxQECFvgTza0TflRsMSiJYQzLUvM6TZkYEa7eSN82MySHuL3xdcDmpS8LQRkj~GzbGLYOH39qAqMyJUfVbvmCZxzcOZw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Sacramento City Council approved a five‑year renewal of the city’s Gunfire Detection System subscription (branded ShotSpotter, owned by SoundThinking), with added direction that Sacramento Police Department (SPD) provide an annual report on the system’s effectiveness and usage metrics.

Deputy Chief Zach Bales and Captain Ethan Hanson briefed the council on how the system operates, its cost and the department’s view of its value. Hanson described the detection workflow: multiple microphones report a candidate sound; SoundThinking reviewers then vet the audio and, if verified as gunfire, publish an alert to SPD with a longitude/latitude and the audio file, typically “within 60 seconds,” he said. Hanson told the council the proposed renewal would cost approximately $530,000 per year, funded through a combination of JAG (federal) grant funds and local MYOP funds, and would include a five‑year subscription with an annual opt‑out. He said human verification reduces false alerts and that in July the vendor distinguished roughly 3,900 detections down to 55 verified gunshot publications.

Deputy Chief Bales framed the system as one element of a broader violent‑crime strategy. “ShotSpotter helps us avoid over policing while targeting an actual crime,” he said, and described a recent case in which air and ground units used ShotSpotter activations to identify and detain a suspect. Bales told council staff data show a multi‑year drop in gunfire alerts and firearm assaults within the ShotSpotter polygons and said the system was especially valuable because many shootings go unreported by witnesses.

Public comment was sharply divided. Keon Bliss, former chair of the Sacramento Community Police Review Commission, urged the council to let the contract lapse, saying “ending it today would actually immediately save Sacramento taxpayers more than $500,000 a year,” and citing studies and other cities that have discontinued ShotSpotter. Supporters of the renewal, including some council members, said the system helps get officers and medical aid to people who otherwise would not be located and argued the contract includes favorable termination language.

Legal and budget details were part of the council’s direction. City attorneys said the negotiated contract contains a 30‑day no‑cost termination clause and a prorated refund formula should the city opt out, which council members cited as an important protection. After multiple councilmembers requested clearer performance metrics, the approving motion was amended to require SPD to return annually with an evidence‑based report covering at least: number of activations, vendor‑verified vs. vendor‑rejected detections, number of activations that produced physical or testimonial evidence, weapons recovered or arrests led by activations, a comparison of ShotSpotter‑initiated responses versus 911‑initiated responses, and operational costs including estimated staff time.

Vice Mayor Talamantes moved approval of the five‑year renewal with the annual reporting requirement; the motion was seconded by Councilmember Kaplan and carried on the council floor. Council members said they expected the required reports to inform future renewals or termination decisions.

What to watch next: SPD will provide the first annual effectiveness report as directed by council; the contract has a built‑in annual opt‑out and a 30‑day no‑cost termination clause, and members of the public and oversight bodies said they will examine the city’s reported metrics closely.

Why it matters: The vote continues a program Sacramento police say helps reach victims and preserve life in neighborhoods where shootings often go unreported, while opponents questioned whether the system’s cost and false‑positive rates justify the investment and whether it disproportionately affects Black and Latino neighborhoods.","The City Council authorized a five‑year renewal of the SoundThinking/ShotSpotter gunfire detection subscription and added a requirement that Sacramento Police provide annual, itemized reports on ShotSpotter performance and outcomes, after public debate over cost, accuracy and equity.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Council upholds Curtis Park Village plan: approves 31-house flex parcel, denies PUD amendment to remove multifamily site

City adopts classification and salary schedule updates; moves two fire classifications into unrepresented unit

Council renews ShotSpotter contract with annual effectiveness review after split public testimony