Category Archives: ECOS comment letters

Letter to UC Regents re Aggie Square

October 10, 2020

Sacramento Investment Without Displacement, of which ECOS is a member, sent a letter to UC Regents regarding our concerns about Aggie Square.

Below is an excerpt from the letter.

We are writing this letter to appeal to you and the Board of Regents to request that UC Davis and its developer Wexford Science and Technology commit to signing a Community Benefits Agreement (CBA) with our broad coalition. We believe that this project could bring great possibility and promise for the future of Oak Park and other nearby neighborhoods, the City of Sacramento and UC Davis Medical Center, if the benefits are shared widely and equity and inclusion are embraced as core values.

Before this project’s Environmental Impact Report is approved, it is a moral imperative that the UC system consider our community coalition and the impacted community we represent. The leaders of our coalition are requesting a meaningful conversation with UC Davis and its developer to address inequities and unintended consequences of this project.

The Oak park community is mostly made up of people of color, low-income people and immigrants who have carried a heavy burden for generations in the history of the development of this region. Unfortunately, deep poverty, violence, inadequate affordable and safe housing, employment discrimination and the many subtle actions of hate have deeply wounded countless promising young and old souls alike. Residents have a list of concerns about how the build-out and operation of Aggie Square will impact their neighborhoods.

Click here to read the letter in full.

ECOS Comments on Sac County Climate Action Plan

On September 25, 2020, the Environmental Council of Sacramento submitted comments to Sacramento County in response to their request for community input for forming our County’s long-awaited Climate Action Plan.

The County has broad authority and influence over GHG-emitting activities, including land use patterns and building practices, and has crucial public health responsibilities. I understand that the CAP is a legally-framed document, responding to State GHG-reduction targets. The County needs to more than the legally-required minimum.

– Ralph Propper, ECOS President

We expect to see a draft Sacramento County Climate Action Plan in 2-3 months that the public can review.

Click here for the full letter.

AB-900 Compliance for the CNU Medical Center Project

On September 18, 2020, the Environmental Council of Sacramento submitted a letter regarding AB-900 compliance of the CNU Medical Center Project, asking for a 30-day extension for the DEIR review period.

We are requesting an additional 30 days to continue our review of this DEIR and feel that this is more than justified given that the City of Elk Grove needs to be in compliance with the record preparation requirements of AB 900 which requires that all documents that will be part of the public record will be provided by lead agencies within five days of being received and that they will be in an easily accessible electronic format.

Click here to read the letter in full.

Click here to learn more about this project, and our concerns.

ECOS Comments on NewBridge Specific Plan, FEIR

On September 1, 2020, the Environmental Council of Sacramento (ECOS) submitted comments on the NewBridge Specific Plan and Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR), dated Aug. 21, 2020.

Below is an excerpt from our comment letter.

CONSISTENCY: The Jackson Corridor projects should be treated consistently in terms of the County’s requirements for project approval. The requirement to meet state mandated greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reductions targets is a particularly important one. Mather South demonstrated that it met state mandated GHG emissions reductions targets in the Climate Change chapter of its Specific Plan/FEIR. By contrast, the NewBridge FEIR currently calls for a demonstration of adequate emission reductions at the time of tentative map approval.

Close scrutiny of the project by the public and yourselves as County leaders occurs at FEIR approval. We ask that the NewBridge FEIR be modified prior to your approval to ensure GHG thresholds are met and the project’s impact is reduced to a “less than significant level.”

Mather South’s FEIR, CC-2 measures (GHG-reducing measures) are named and quantified: EV Charging and 100 Percent Solar on All Nonresidential Buildings and Residential Buildings. In addition, the CC-3 measure for purchase of carbon offsets is described and quantified. The NewBridge FEIR simply lists the CC-2 measures as a menu to be selected at tentative map approval. No quantification is provided. A demonstration that GHG thresholds are met is not provided.

For reference, please see this excerpt from the Mather South FEIR, page 7-29:

“Implementation of Mitigation Measure CC-1 requires the project to comply with all provisions included in the AQMP. This mitigation would be consistent with provisions of General Plan Policy AQ-4. Implementation of Mitigation Measure CC-2 would further reduce GHG emissions associated with residential and nonresidential building energy and transportation. However, GHG emissions would not be mitigated to a less-than significant level through the provisions of the AQMP and Mitigation Measure CC-2 alone. Thus, the purchase of carbon offsets as discussed in Mitigation Measure CC-3 would reduce the transportation-related GHG emissions to reduce mass emissions by 301 MTCO2e/year for the transportation sector by 2032. With implementation of Mitigation Measure CC-3, all GHG thresholds would be met and this impact would be reduced to a less-than-significant level. [Mather South Final EIR, page 7-29, PLNP2013-00065]

Click here to read the letter in full (PDF).

Click here to view the environmental and planning documents.

Image by rawpixel.com

Climate Planning in Galt

On June 29, 2020, the Environmental Council of Sacramento, Sierra Club Sacramento Group and 350 Sacramento submitted comments on three projects being planned for the City of Galt. Our comments focus on potential (Greenhouse Gas) GHG impacts.

Click the links below to view each letter.