Elk Grove and Swainson’s Hawk Mitigation

Dear Friends:

Elk Grove is at it again. At the request of developer Gerry Kamilos and rancher Stan Van Vleck, the City is considering changing its mitigation requirement for Swainson’s Hawks impacts of development in the Southeast Policy Area. This change will put mitigation more than 18 miles from the site of impact. The current requirement is within 10 miles. The Elk Grove area is one of the densest nesting areas of Swainson’s Hawks in California. The Van Vleck Ranch is not. The hearing is June 27, Wednesday at 6.

The agenda and staff report (Item 9.1) are found here http://www.elkgrovecity.org/UserFiles/Servers/Server_109585/File/cityclerk/citycouncil/2018/ag-06-27-18.pdf

California Department of Fish and Wildlife prepared an analysis of the suitability of the proposed Van Vleck mitigation property for mitigation for development in Elk Grove and concluded that the property was too far from the site of impact to be appropriate mitigation. That report is included in the Staff report on line. Also included are our previous letters (with allies) explaining why this is a bad idea.

Please send an email to the Elk Grove City Council before June 27 to oppose this change.

Here is what you should include in your comment:

Item 9.1 A Public Hearing to consider a resolution adopting an Addendum to the Certified Environmental Impact Report for the Southeast Policy Area Strategic Plan involving text changes to the EIR and previously-adopted Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) [p. 1-252]

I oppose the proposed change in mitigation measure for the Southeast Policy Area development impacts on Swainson’s Hawk foraging.

1. The mitigation land proposed is too distant (18 miles plus) from the site of impact to be appropriate mitigation land for development in Elk Grove. Until now, development in Elk Grove has mitigated for impacts within 10 miles of the development.

2. An Addendum to the Final EIR for the Plan area is no way to make a major policy change in Elk Grove’s protection of the Swainson’s Hawk population that its growth is and has impacted. This is a significant change requiring an override of existing Elk Grove policy. It affects 900 acres of mitigation and sets a precedent for much more.

3. The City claims to have an exemplar Swainson’s Hawk mitigation program. Invoking a loophole in its Ordinance to provide a significant deviation from its policy would disqualify the City from claiming its distinction as a protector of the Swainson’s Hawk.

Your name and area/city of residence.

Contact info for emailing City of Elk Grove: you can use this email string –
stevely[at]elkgrovecity[dot]org, dsuen[at]elkgrovecity[dot]org, phume[at]elkgrovecity[dot]org, sdetrick[at]elkgrovecity[dot]org, snguyen[at]elkgrovecity[dot]org, jbehrmann[at]elkgrovecity[dot]org,aablog[at]elkgrovecity[dot]org, swainsonshawk[at]sbcglobal[dot]net

Friends of the Swainson’s Hawk
swainsonshawk[at]sbcglobal[dot]net
Judith Lamare

Neighborhood Planned for Toxic Waste Site in Folsom

June 12, 2018

How do you think the Aerojet Area 40 Toxic waste site in Folsom should be cleaned up before it is developed into a park, open space and residential area?

A Public Meeting to Review and Comment on the Remedial Action Plan for the cleanup and development of the Aerojet Area 40 Toxic Waste site, which is South of Highway 50 will be held:

June 20 from 6-8 pm,
Folsom Community Center,
Western Conference Room,
52 Natoma Street, Folsom

South of highway 50 just east of Prairie City Road, lies Aerojet Rocketdyne’s “Area 40”, a hazardous waste site waiting be cleaned up. Folsom and local developers are planning a 48-acre park with housing nearby within the Folsom Planning Area at the location of Area 40. A 26-acre “open space” will be fenced off until extremely high soil vapor levels drop to lower levels.

The Department of Toxics Substances (DTSC) released the proposed cleanup plan in May, and a Public Meeting will be held June 20 in Folsom.

While Aerojet Rocketdyne leased this land their industrial activities included separating solvents from propellant-solvent mixtures and open burning of laboratory wastes, propellants, kerosene fuel, and flammable liquids.

Chemicals identified within Area 40 soils and soil vapor were: dioxins and furans, metals, perchlorate, semi- volatile organic compounds and volatile organic compounds. Chemicals identified in groundwater were perchlorate, trichloroethylene (TCE), tetrachloroethylene (PCE), and additional volatile organic compounds.

The proposed cleanup plans are to remove 31,100 tons of contaminated soil from two areas on the site. Note that soil vapors move from the soil into the air. Extremely high levels of volatile organic compounds are in the shallow groundwater. The cleanup plans include measures to require vapor mitigation systems to move chemical vapors from under potential new housing.

How thorough will the cleanup be for the proposed new Community West Park near Prairie City Road? For the open space area north of the park? For the single-family high-density homes just north of the site, and for the commercial and multi-family units to the south?

Levels of contamination: The Remedial Action Plan (RAP) for Area 40 says that the site poses unacceptable risk to human and ecological health, which is true. However, the RAP does not mention that the levels of TCE in shallow groundwater, soil gas and even outdoor air are among the highest observed in California. The site has up to 120,000 μg/L TCE in shallow groundwater, which is 24,000 times the Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) of 5 μg/L TCE. The site has up to 268 million μg/m3 TCE in soil gas, which is 8 million times the EPA default screening level for protecting residents from TCE vapor intrusion into indoor air. The levels of TCE are so high on portions of the site, that levels of TCE in outdoor air 4 foot above the ground pose a risk for fetal heart defects. Levels of TCE are likely to be even higher for infants or small children breathing closer to the ground and individuals laying or picnicking on the ground.

The City of Folsom and the developers are focused on whether the park can go into the proposed area. The risk assessment for human health is based on limited park use.

During the cleanup additional contamination may be found, which could change the scope or nature of the cleanup.

June 20: Learn about this site – make your thoughts known at the meeting scheduled for 6pm at the Folsom Community Center, Western Conference Room, 52 Natoma Street, in Folsom.

Give Caltrans input on their latest freeway-widening plans

Give Caltrans input on their latest freeway-widening plans!

Caltrans ready to expand Yolo Causeway, seeks public’s input

Project would extend carpool lane from Solano County to Sacramento County

Remember: Several studies have shown that freeway expansion leads to increased vehicle miles traveled (VMT) (“induced demand”) and encourages sprawl, thereby exacerbating the region’s traffic and air quality woes, and increasing greenhouse gas emissions that contribute to climate change. (excerpt from ECOS Press Release on our lawsuit filed against Caltrans re Highway 50, based on the same premise).

Bottom line? Adding lanes is expensive and doesn’t alleviate congestion after all.

Please attend one of Caltrans’ workshops as they seek public input abpout widening the I-80 freeway:

Thursday, June 14, from 6 p.m. to 7:30 p.m. at the West Sacramento Civic Center Galleria at 1110 West Capitol Ave. in West Sacramento
Thursday, June 21, from 6 p.m. to 7:30 p.m. at Sacramento City Hall at 915 I St. in Sacramento

News coverage

Caltrans shares plans to fix Yolo Causeway bottleneck
By Brian Hickey, KCRA
Updated: 9:03 AM PDT Jun 6, 2018
http://www.kcra.com/article/caltrans-shares-plans-to-fix-yolo-causeway-bottleneck/21096174

Caltrans seeks public input for expanding Yolo Causeway
By Max Resnick, KCRA
Updated: 6:14 PM PDT Jun 6, 2018
http://www.kcra.com/article/caltrans-seeks-public-input-for-expanding-yolo-causeway/21102465

Residents sound off about proposed changes to Yolo Causeway
By Brandi Cummings, KCRA
Updated: 11:36 PM PDT Jun 6, 2018
http://www.kcra.com/article/residents-sound-off-about-proposed-changes-to-yolo-causeway/21147806

Caltrans ready to expand Yolo Causeway, seeks public’s input*
By Max Resnik and Brandi Cummings, KCRA
Updated: 11:45 PM PDT Jun 6, 2018
http://www.kcra.com/article/caltrans-ready-to-expand-yolo-causeway-seeks-publics-input/21101820

*ECOS is mentioned in the fourth (and most recent) article

Caltrans ready to expand Yolo Causeway, seeks public’s input

By Max Resnick

June 06, 2018

The Sacramento Bee

Caltrans will begin the process of seeking public input on a proposal to improve traffic congestion on Interstate 80 between Solano and Sacramento counties.

The state’s transportation department wants to extend an existing carpool lane at the edge of Solano County through Yolo County and into Sacramento County

. . .

The Environmental Council of Sacramento, a nonprofit whose mission, according to its website, is “to achieve regional and community sustainability and a healthy environment for existing and future residents,” opposes the idea.

The council believes it will actually worsen the traffic situation along the stretch of highway.

. . .

“I like the idea of the bike path,” said Diane Swann, member of Bike Davis. “I don’t care about another HOV lane. I think that you widen the road, you get more cars.”

. . .

Among the topics that could be discussed is whether to turn the lane into a toll lane.

Click here to read the full article.

To learn more about some of the problems caused by widening freeways, please read about our recent lawsuit against Caltrans for their plans to widen Highway 50 with High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes by clicking here.

Share your thoughts! SacRT Forward Virtual Community Workshop

SacRT Forward will rethink the purpose and design of Sacramento Regional Transit’s entire transit network by exploring wholesale changes to the network, including a “blank slate” look at how to position transit competitively long-term in the Sacramento region.

We need to hear from you. Your input will help inform the project team about which key choices to make about the future of the SacRT transit network.

Join the conversation – Responses will be collected through May 15, 2018. There will be additional opportunities to provide input on the SacRT Forward Network Plan throughout this year. Get started below!

Click here to submit your input!

As LAFCO Reconsiders Expansion of Elk Grove, Public Comments, Including Planning Commissioner, Condemn Annexation

May 1, 2018

Elk Grove News.net

At their regular monthly meeting on Wednesday, May 2, the Sacramento Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) will hold a second hearing reconsidering their February 7 decision opening the doors for an expansion of Elk Grove city limits.

That decision which approved the environmental impact statement for a so-called sphere of influence (SOI) application is a significant step to annex the nearly two square miles into Elk Grove. Unlike an unsuccessful effort led by the city in 2013 to annex 12-square miles, this smaller annexation is being pursued by private real estate developers Reynolds & Brown, Kamilos Development, and Feletto Development who want to build thousands of residential dwellings.

The second hearing, which was initially scheduled for April but rescheduled to tomorrow, was granted after requests from several environmental groups and individuals. Collectively they claimed the 4-3 commission decision was flawed and did not fully consider issues such as how will water be supplied conveyed for the development.

Along with the comments from environmental groups and Elk Grove area residents, public comments also came from residents outside the area. Typical of this was a comment from Carmichael, California resident Peggy Berry who framed the issue as anti-citizen and pro-developer.

In her comments dated April 4 Berry wrote; “When will sound planning stand a chance against monied interests? It’s discouraging and makes citizens who care about the broader picture of preserving open spaces and their dwindling habitats feel their caring means little to nothing when looking at Sacramento’s future desirability.”

Click here to read the full article.