📋
Extracted from Consolidated Report

This investigation was originally published as part of a larger consolidated report containing multiple investigations. View the consolidated PDF for the complete document.

Sacramento County Grand Jury • 2006-2007

Health and Human Services Committee

94 pages
View PDF View Full Original

Findings 6 findings

F1 Page 37
The planning and implementation of the development of North Natomas, and the push to develop to the Sutter County line, constitute the fiscalization of land use. In May 1986, the city rejected the no project alternative (Alternative A) and the limited development alternative (Alternative B) for fiscal reasons. The city noted when it made findings on May 13, 1986, (Resolution No. 86-348, adopting findings of fact and statement of overriding considerations supporting the NNCP and conforming to the general plan amendments), that the North Natomas area was going to grow in the unincorporated areas and other places in the region and that the city would not fiscally benefit unless it allowed the development to proceed on land within the city with full build out in the entire Natomas basin. 27
F2 Page 38
There is no information currently being provided to the California Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board as to the content of the water, sediment and soil in the drainage detention basins in North Natomas. The city may be allowing untreated surface water containing pollutants, such as pesticides, to reach the Sacramento River.
F3 Page 39
The plans to evacuate the area in case of a flood event are still being developed. However, to ignore the advice of DWR and to continue allowing building in the Natomas flood plain after the city has been put on notice that it does not meet the minimum flood protection status, raise the question of potential responsibility for flood related damages and loss of life.
F4 Page 60
The current SAS policy for allowing individuals to elect not to be notified of an impending emergency does not demonstrate a realistic understanding of an emergency situation.
F5 Page 74
The City of Sacramento has entered into an unknown number of agreements with the developer of the railyard and others related to the development of the railyards. 7 2
F6 Page 38
Have the various fiscal devices that the city used to assist the developers provided a clear audit trail to determine that builders/developers did what they were supposed to do with the money and in a timely and proper manner? The audit report should be made readily available to the public at the same time it is given to the city. Finding 2. There is no information currently being provided to the California Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board as to the content of the water, sediment and soil in the drainage detention basins in North Natomas. The city may be allowing untreated surface water containing pollutants, such as pesticides, to reach the Sacramento River.

Recommendations 5

Agency Responses 1

Government agencies' official responses to this report's findings and recommendations. Click on a response to see the structured breakdown.