Tag Archives: Climate Change

Feb 11 Update from Trees Sacramento

February 11, 2016

Dear Tree Advocates

Trees Sacramento continues to promote a strong tree ordinance with City Staff and Council members. Our letter was signed by six regional environmental organizations, supported by 10 neighborhood associations, and an additional 11 individual community leaders.  Staff has indicated that they hoped to take another version of the tree ordinance to the Law and Legislation Committee in March and to City Council in April 2016.  This version may include some of our recommendations but not others.

In a recent meeting with Council Member Jeff Harris, we were encouraged that some of our recommendations are being considered and some may be incorporated into the next revision of the Staff’s proposed ordinance.  There appears to be support at the City that  trees on city-owned properties would be treated equally with the same protections as city street trees.  Staff is reexamining the issue of requiring replacement and mitigation in the ordinance for removal of protected trees (rather than leaving this to the discretion of the director).

However, staff is still opposed to other important recommendations such as a notification of tree removals, requiring trees in all development projects, and making tree removal factors (criteria) objective and quantifiable.

Upper Land Park Neighbors, Sierra Curtis Neighborhood Association,  Trees4Sacramento and ECOS also attended the Parks and Recreation Commission hearing when staff presented the tree ordinance changes they seek.  Most commissioners were strongly in favor of better notification of tree removals to community.  In addition, some members indicated they did not want to hear tree appeals because they lack expertise to make informed decisions.

We are making progress,  but we will have to wait and review the new draft ordinance and prepare a response when it is available.  

In particular we want to ensure that the ordinance revises support and are consistent with our General Plan policies and Climate Action Plan.  Our General Plan policies in question are underlined below:

ER 3.1.2 Manage and Enhance the City’s Tree Canopy

The City shall continue to plant new trees, ensure new developments have sufficient right-of-way width for tree plantings, manage and care for all publicly owned trees, and work to retain healthy trees. The City shall monitor, evaluate and report, by community plan area and citywide, on the entire tree canopy in order to maintain and enhance trees throughout the City and to identify opportunities for new plantings. (RDR/MPSP/SO)

ER 3.1.3 Trees of Significance

The City shall require the retention of City trees and Heritage Trees by promoting stewardship of such trees and ensuring that the design of development projects provides for the retention of these trees wherever possible. Where tree removal cannot be avoided, the City shall require tree replacement or appropriate remediation. (RDR/MPSP)

ER 3.1.4 Visibility of Commercial Corridors

The City shall balance the tree canopy of the urban forest with the need for visibility along commercial corridors, including the selection of tree species with elevated canopies. (RDR)

ER 3.1.6 Urban Heat Island Effects.

The City shall continue to promote planting shade trees with substantial canopies, and require, where feasible, site design that uses trees to shade rooftops, parking facilities, streets, and other facilities to minimize heat island effects. (RDR/PI)

ER 3.1.9 Funding

The City shall provide adequate funding to manage and maintain the city’s urban forest on City property, including tree planting, training, maintenance, removal, and replacement. (SO/FB)

 THANK YOU  for all your help in getting the improvements to the current staff ordinance.  BE AWARE — we will need your help for the upcoming two meetings  – to  get people to send support letters and attend these important meetings.

Trees Sacramento

trees4sacto[at]sbcglobal[dot]net

Please visit our Trees Sacramento page for more information about this issue.

Feb 3 Update on Sacramento City Tree Ordinance

February 3, 2016

On January 4, Trees Sacramento, of which ECOS is a participating member, delivered a community letter on the Tree Ordinance Revision proposed by city staff. The current update of that letter can be read on the excerpt of the letter, below. 

Over the last month Trees Sacramento has discussed these issues and received more input. The result is hopefully a more polished and persuasive statement of our concerns about the staff draft and suggestions for improvements.

Key points*:
– ordinance should be consistent with and support General Plan Urban Forestry goals, the 2012 Climate Action Plan and the existing Urban Forestry Management Plan.
– keep appeal of protected tree removal to Park and Rec Commission
– all city owned trees should be protected and preserved and maintained by city
– replacement should be required for any protected tree removal, not just at the discretion of the director, and all new projects should have tree requirements
– do not make it easier to remove healthy, functioning urban forest – use objective criteria for tree removal
– retain Dutch elm disease ordinance or language to cover rapid response to infectious tree disease
– better notice and appeal procedures for tree removals
– ensure protection of migratory raptor nesting by permittees and contractors
– the ordinance needs better enforcement and reporting requirements

feb 3 letter image

*Please visit our Trees Sacramento page for more information about this issue.

Time to consider higher sales tax for Sacramento’s regional transportation work

January 12, 2016

By Sacramento City Councilmember Steve Hansen

Special to The Bee

“It may be time to consider asking voters to support a supplemental sales tax to fund transportation projects. The Transportation Authority board is considering putting a measure on the November ballot. If the measure added a half-cent tax, it would raise $116 million a year. Half the proceeds would repair and repave existing roads, while the other half would build new infrastructure. If the measure enacted a quarter-cent, most of the $58 million per year would likely be used to fix and maintain existing infrastructure.”

Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/opinion/op-ed/soapbox/article54348070.html#storylink=cpy

ECOS would support an increase in the County-wide transportation tax, as long as it emphasizes non-auto modes and does not include any new road projects. We believe it’s essential that funding of transit (particularly buses), pedestrian and bicycle facilities is increased to encourage healthy, non-auto modes of transportation. ‪#‎ActiveTransportation‬

Larry Greene to Speak to ECOS About the Paris Talks (COP21)

Thursday, January 7th, 2016 at 6:00pm
Location: Breathe CA, 909 12th Street, Sacramento, CA.

Larry Greene, Executive Director of the Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District (SMAQMD) will be speaking about his time at the 21st Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (COP21). Join ECOS’ Transportation, Air Quality and Climate Change (TAQCC) committee to hear about his experience.

ECOS and Habitat 2020 Letter on Expanding the Urban Services Boundary in Natomas, Dec 16, 2015

The Sacramento County Board of Supervisors announced today that they have moved their workshop on the plan to expand the Urban Services Boundary north of Natomas from tomorrow, December 16th, 2015 to March 8, 2016. ECOS’ comments on how expanding the boundary would allow for a whole new area of urban sprawl when we should instead be focusing on infill development and reaping the co-benefits were submitted on December 15th, 2015.

Capture

We hope that your Board understands the significance of your actions regarding expanding the USB north to the Sutter County line. We understand that this is only a step in a long process of considering entitlement approval. But you have authorized entering into contracts for over $7 million worth of studies and work to figure out the details of creating a new town of 55,000 people, and you have authorized preparation of a $1 million Environmental Impact Report to consider the impacts. You are proceeding as if this is a done deal only requiring the planning details to be worked out. And you are doing so without having fully and publicly addressed the significant issues associated with the threshold decision of whether this development should proceed at all, in this time frame, or under the auspices of the County rather than the City. Please consider our request to put the project on hold while you undertake a serious and unbiased review and hold a public discussion on the important concerns we are raising.

See our comments by clicking on the letter above or here.