City Announces Temporary Ban On Residential Tenant Evictions

The Sacramento City Council adopted an ordinance on March 17 to establish a temporary ban on evicting residential tenants unable to pay rent due to a loss of income caused by the Novel Coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19).
“It is vital for us to protect residential tenants during this tenuous time,” said Assistant City Manager Michael Jasso. “This ordinance is part of the City’s efforts to address the financial impacts of the disease on renters locally, the population most at-risk of swift housing displacement.”

Click here to view the article on the City of Sacramento’s website.

Why is this an environmental issue? People need to have the option to live near their jobs and other every day destinations. This means making sure there are enough affordable, quality residences in the urban core of Sacramento, even in the face of a pandemic. If people who work downtown cannot afford to live downtown, we are not going to meet our region’s greenhouse gas emission reduction targets. To do our part as a city, Sacramento must find ways to reduce the need for workers to commute every day.

Sacramento County Climate Action

March 18, 2020 – Action Alert (Good News!)

These are confusing and difficult times, but we have some good news. Sacramento County Supervisors on April 7, 2020 will discuss starting their long-delayed Climate Action Plan. We want to help them do the right thing. Click below to tell the Supervisors you want a strong Climate Action Plan in Sacramento County. Thank you very much.

Take Action

Photo by Markus Spiske from Pexels

More funding for transit and less money for new roads.

On March 18, 2020, the Environmental Council of Sacramento sent the following message to the Sacramento Board Clerk regarding Sacramento County Measure A’s Draft Expenditure Plan (DEP) .

ECOS consists of 20 locally-based member organizations, as well as many individual members. Since 1971, we have promoted infill development and transit, as opposed to sprawl – to save habitat, reduce pollution, and more recently — to deal with climate change.
We are gratified that Mayor Steinberg and CARB have recognized that new highway projects must demonstrate that they would not exacerbate climate change, in order to be eligible for funding under Measure A+. We strongly support the funding that would be provided to the Air District. We are pleased that Measure A’s Draft Expenditure Plan (DEP) would provide a much greater percentage of funding for transit, compared to 2016’s ill-fated Measure B.
However, the DEP would not provide as great a percentage for transit as the current Measure A. Since current Measure A was approved by voters, the existential threat of climate change has become more obvious and serious. Also, the affordable housing crisis has become California’s biggest problem. Therefore, future county growth must be higher density, and transit-oriented. We can only accomplish this by providing more funding for transit and less money for new roads.

Click here to view the email message in PDF.

Photo by form PxHere

Requesting Sacramento County Greenhouse Gas Report

General Plan Annual Report: GHG Measures

On February 20, 2020, the Environmental Council of Sacramento, 350 Sacramento and the Sierra Club Sacramento Group submitted a request to the County of Sacramento for a report on greenhouse gases as part of their general plan.

CA Government Code §65400 requires the County to report by April 1 of each year the status of the general plan and progress in its implementation. We expect the Board of Supervisors to review the pending report at a March 2020 hearing.
General Plan Policy LU-115, adopted November 2011, states a goal of reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2020, and presents four implementation measures:
• Adopt by resolution a first-phase Climate Action Plan.
• Complete a GHG emissions inventory every three years.
• Prepare a second-phase Climate Action Plan within three years.
• Enact and fund a Sustainability Program to provide ongoing oversight, monitoring and maintenance of the Climate Action Plan.

Click here to read the letter in full.

Image by kuanish Sarsenov from Pixabay

Share Your Ideas with the Mayors’ Commission on Climate Change

If you live in the City of Sacramento or the City of West Sacramento, you have the power to voice your opinions on climate change action! It’s quick and easy, just fill out the comment form here.

Mayor Steinberg and Mayor Cabaldon are leading the Mayors’ Commission on Climate Change to develop a common vision and set of strategies for both cities to achieve net zero greenhouse gas emissions, referred to as Carbon Zero, by 2045. Follow this link for more information.

Galt CAP Requires EIR Analysis

December 4, 2019

The Environmental Council of Sacramento, Habitat 2020, the Sierra Club Sacramento Group and 350 Sacramento submitted a letter containing our follow up to comments on the City of Galt’s draft Climate Action Plan (CAP).

The City of Galt has prepared a draft Climate Action Plan (CAP) describing how it proposes to meet legal obligations to reduce greenhouse gas emissions within the City. Adoption of a CAP requires environmental analysis under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The City proposes to conduct abbreviated environmental review with a “Negative Declaration” (MND) instead of an “Environmental Impact Report” (EIR). ECOS and partner organizations assert that abbreviated review would not be legally acceptable, and further argue that conducting separate reviews for the CAP and two related road-building studies would be impermissible “piece-mealing” (analyzing environmental impacts of a single project as if it were several separate projects, to minimize apparent impacts).

Below are some of our key points.

Preparing an MND for the CAP would be inconsistent with CEQA requirements. Our earlier letter demonstrates with substantial evidence that the City’s draft CAP does not meet the requirements for a qualified GHG reduction plan or for mitigation enforceability, per CEQA Guidelines . . . We cited unsupported use of statewide targets, failure to meet the State’s 2050 target, non-enforceability of virtually all proposed mitigation measures, inadequate monitoring and update protocol, and lack of implementation funding.
The above would support a fair argument that adopting the draft CAP as a qualified GHG reduction plan which could streamline (i.e. diminish) CEQA review for future projects will likely have a significant effect on the environment. Pursuant to 14 CCR §15064 such a potential impact requires environmental analysis via an EIR.
The City’s grant agreement provides for concurrent development of three planning documents… [which] appear to be one whole project. The second two are clearly directly related. The CAP . . . would have, “a potential . . . reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment” by reducing or obviating future GHG analysis of the urban development made possible by extending Carillion Boulevard . . . analyzing the . . . potential environmental effects of these three plans together in one document would fall more properly within CEQA’s regulatory requirements.

Click here to read the letter.