Lawsuit filed on Elk Grove Sphere of Influence

June 1, 2018

Sierra Club, ECOS, et al. File Legal Action to Reverse Sacramento Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo) Approval of Expansion of Elk Grove Sphere of Influence

On June 1, 2018, the Environmental Council of Sacramento, Sierra Club, Friends of Swainson’s Hawk, Friends of Stone Lakes Wildlife Refuge and Habitat 2020 filed an action to block Sacramento LAFCo’s approval of an expanded Sphere of Influence for the City of Elk Grove.  “Numerous legal errors occurred in the Commission’s consideration and approval on a 4-3 vote of this landowner*-initiated amendment to Elk Grove’s potential boundary. The decision permits previously protected farmland to now be considered for annexation into the City,” said Don Mooney, attorney for the environmental groups.  “My clients represent the public interest in curbing sprawl and preserving farmland in this region.”

The Sierra Club, Environmental Council of Sacramento (ECOS) and associates have long maintained that the health and sustainability of the Sacramento region depends upon the preservation of farmland and avoidance of further urban sprawl.  “LAFCo has pivoted away from long established regional goals with this approval,” said Sierra Club Mother Lode Chapter Conservation Chair Sean Wirth,” and we aim to hold them accountable.  All of our region’s planning for infrastructure, the Regional Transportation Plan, the South Sacramento Habitat Conservation Plan, water supply, sanitation, and the Air Quality Plan are based on an Urban Services Boundary that LAFCo pushed aside in its February 7 decision.  This blatant disregard for decades of careful planning must be challenged.”

Ralph Propper, President of ECOS, noted that “Although the Sphere of Influence Amendment is just the first step in urbanization  ­—no dirt will be turned soon—, the Environmental Impact Report identified 22 significant and unavoidable impacts from this decision that cannot be mitigated.  This is a damaging land use decision that threatens the health of our community.”

Jim Pachl, Sierra Club Mother Lode Chapter Legal Chair, pointed out that “there are over 4000 vacant acres zoned for new development within the City of Elk Grove, including 1800 acres with residential project approvals that remain unbuilt.  Some projects were approved over ten years ago and remain unbuilt.  Lent Ranch Mall remains a half-built shell.  LAFCo lacks a legitimate reason to allow a conversion of farmland for expansion of Elk Grove’s footprint.”

LAFCo denied a request to reconsider its decision on May 2, setting the stage for the filing of litigation. 

*The Sphere of Influence Amendment was sought by landowners of 1,156 acres south of Kammerer Road and west of Highway 99.  The applicants are Gerry Kamilos and Martin Feletto.

###

Pitch In!

Lawsuits are pricey! If you would like to provide monetary support for this, you can donate online HERE OR send a check to the Environmental Council of Sacramento, P.O. Box 1526, Sacramento, CA 95812. Please include a notation “for Elk Grove lawsuit” in the memo field of Paypal or your check to ensure that your donation goes to the lawsuit.

In The News

Suit filed to block step toward annexation of land by Elk Grove
June 5, 2018
The Sacramento Business Journal
https://www.bizjournals.com/sacramento/news/2018/06/05/suit-filed-to-block-step-toward-annexation-of-land.html

Environmental Groups File Lawsuit Against Sacramento LAFCO, Seek to Halt Elk Grove Expansion
June 5, 2018
ElkGroveNews.net
http://www.elkgrovenews.net/2018/06/environmental-group-files-lawsuit-against-elk-grove-expansion.html

Environmentalists sue to block city’s southern expansion
Elk Grove Citizen
June 8, 2018
http://www.egcitizen.com/news/environmentalists-sue-to-block-city-s-southern-expansion/article_e06d57f0-6b55-11e8-a42c-274a961568ea.html

More Information

Click here for the project application.

Click here for more background information on this issue.

Click here for a PDF of the media advisory.

Elk Grove Expansion May 2 Hearing Outcome

May 11, 2018

Unfortunately, on May 2, 2018, Sacramento LAFCo voted against a reconsideration of their decision to allow Elk Grove to develop into 1,156 acres of farmland, despite the 4,000 acres they already have available for development. ECOS and fellow environmental groups are disappointed, but we are not giving up!

For the latest on opening up farmland on the outskirts of Elk Grove to development, please see the following summary from Judith Lamare, President of Friends of the Swainson’s Hawk and ECOS Board Member.

Dear Farmland and Wildlife Advocates,

Thank you for all your help on the May 2 Reconsideration hearing at LAFCo — no surprises there, the reconsideration was denied on recommendation of staff and legal counsel. You can review the hearing online at http://www.agendanet.saccounty.net/sirepub/mtgviewer.aspx?meetid=12340&doctype=AGENDA.  Click on item 5.  The video and supporting material are on the right, including the Executive Director’s report.  It’s amazing what you can learn from reviewing the hearing.  For example, at the May 2 hearing, Rob Burness of ECOS pointed out that County General Plan policy requires 4/5 Supervisors to approve a change in the Urban Services Boundary.  But at LAFCo, two Supervisors voted to change that policy on a 4-3 vote.
 
So what can we do now?  Here’s our recommendation.
 
1.  Stay knowledgeable and remember who voted to approve the expansion.  County Supervisors Susan Peters and Sue Frost, Carmichael Water District Board member Ron Greenwood and City of Elk Grove Councilman Pat Hume.   Do they represent you?   Voting against were Councilmember Angelique Ashby, Special District Member Gay Jones and Public Member Jack Harrison.  
 
Here are a couple of links to articles:  
 
2.  Stay active
Especially if you live in Elk Grove, there are things you can do now to become more active to help prevent urban sprawl.  You can go to the City of Elk Grove website (here:  http://www.elkgrovecity.org/cms/one.aspx?pageId=275657  ) and ask for notifications for all meetings regarding the update of the General Plan and participate in that process.  The next step for the City is to adopt a new General Plan planning for growth outside its present boundary.  Then it will need to do an annexation procedure, which will set off another battle at LAFCo sometime in the future.
 
Election time is here – a great time to talk to candidates about your desire to keep cities inside their current boundaries, protect farmland and habitat, and respect habitat protection plans.  Find out who is running and talk to them.  
 
3. Support litigation by Sierra Club and ECOS
 
Yes we will file a lawsuit in Sacramento Superior Court against LAFCo to address the errors in the legal process.  Sierra Club and ECOS have retained attorney Don Mooney who is preparing to file.  FOSH is helping to raise money to pay the costs of litigation.  You can help by sending your donation to:
 
Green Incubator
C/o Lamare
 
Mark the check in the memo spot with “FOSH”.  Green Incubator. –  http://sacgreenincubator.org/donations/   – is Sacramento’s 501-c-3 “community bank for the environment” – and maintains a Fund to support conservation activities for the Swainson’s Hawk.  It’s tax id is  68-0143852.
 
Friends of the Swainson’s Hawk
Judith Lamare
President

Letter from ECOS Requesting that LAFCo Reconsider Approval of “Kammerer 99 SOIA” Amendment

May 1, 2018

Patrick Hume, Chair
Sacramento Local Agency Formation Commission
1112 I Street, Sacramento, CA, 95814
Via email to commissionclerk[at]saclafco[dot]org

RE: Request to Reconsider LAFCo approval of Kammerer/99 SOIA amendment

Dear Mr. Hume and fellow Commissioners:

I would like to focus on two concerns that ECOS and Habitat 2020 believe were not adequately addressed by LAFCo Commissioners in their deliberations on the Kammerer/99 SOIA Amendment: 1) Cumulative Traffic impacts and 2) County policy regarding changes to the urban service boundary established in the 1993 Sacramento County General Plan and included in the 2011 update of that plan.

1. Traffic Impacts on the SE Connector. On or about February 29, 2018 the Southeast Connector JPA released a Mitigated Negative Declaration for review and comment. The information contained in this document was not available prior to the LAFCo hearing on February 7, 2018. Among other things the document contained a comprehensive analysis of cumulative traffic impacts both with and without the proposed improvements to Kammerer Road.

Most instructive is Table 45, which shows cumulative and cumulative plus project (the road improvement project) Level of Service (LOS) on a segment by segment basis between Interstate 5 and Highway 99 (See Attachment 1). The cumulative conditions for the analysis are based on full buildout within Elk Grove City (although not taking into account casino development) and MTP/SCS traffic forecasts based on projected 2036 development outside of Elk Grove City. This table reveals a number of important points:

• The cumulative conditions for the various segments are based on a minimum of 4 lanes of traffic, rather than the 2 lanes in the LAFCo RDEIR. Our understanding is that the JPA’s intent is to build the 4 lanes with the proposed project, but if funding is short, the project may be phased with just two lanes at first. If so, the expansion to 4 lanes would occur with funding from impact fees on new development collected by the city of Elk Grove (communication from Matt Satow, project engineer)/

• The daily traffic volume for the segments between Bruceville and Promenade Parkway range between 13,740 and 38,300. This compares to an estimated 29,719 vt/d in the RDEIR for Kammerer/99 SOIA.

• The Cumulative Plus Project conditions in Table 45 yield considerably higher daily volumes along the same stretch of roadway. This is largely the induced traffic demand that connecting Kammerer Road to Interstate 5 will generate.

• The segments west of Bruceville are projected to accommodate 28,000 to 32,000 vt/d. Some of these vehicle trips will originate and end from the north on Bruceville; others will continue eastward toward Highway 99.

• Traffic volume in the Cumulative Plus Project scenario for the segments east of Bruceville are projected to increase between 6,300 and 18,240 vt/d, with the amount of increase decreasing from west to east.

• The level of service with the Cumulative Plus Project actually declines along all segments except one. For one segment, the decline is to LOS E.

This analysis does not include either the Bilby or Kammerer/99 requests. It is logical to assume that taken together, these projects would cause traffic levels on Kammerer/99 to increase LOS along much of the SE Connector between Highway 99 and Interstate 5 to unacceptable levels.

It is clear from the comments of LAFCo Commissioners that the presence of the proposed Southeast Connector was a significant justification for approving the project. This new information, not available at the time of decision, raises the important question that the Kammerer/99 SOIA, particularly when taken into consideration of the soon to be heard Bilby Ridge SOIA, will create significant congestion and challenge the ability of the Connector Project to meet its primary goal: to provide an alternative means for travelers to circumvent the congestion of the Sacramento Urban Area by travelling around the southeast periphery of the developed urban area.

We recognize that Mitigation Measure 3.24-1a requires traffic studies and plans for improvements to mitigate traffic to acceptable levels prior to approval of annexation. Yet there has been no discussion in the record as to what the scope of those improvements might be and how they relate to the purpose of the Southeast Connector as a regional road designed to move traffic between Interstate 5 and Highway 50. For a threshold decision regarding urban growth, this is a glaring omission.

In this light, reconsideration of the project is warranted. At a minimum, LAFCo commissioners should ask for an analysis and report back from the Southeast Connector JPA on the impacts of the projects before the Commission, with additional traffic analysis as necessary to be funded by the applicants. Moreover, we would recommend that reconsideration should be considered at the same time and with the available analysis of the Bilby Ridge project, so as to better evaluate the full scope of traffic impacts on the Southeast Connector.

2. Consistency with Sacramento County Land Use Policy LU-127. Our second point is not so much a matter of new information as it is a glaring oversight on the part of LAFCo commissioners not only in framing their decision, but in making the overriding considerations for approving the project in light of 22 significant and unavoidable adverse impacts.

The RDEIR for Kammerer/99 SOIA does identify policy LU127, which reads as follows:

Policy LU-127: The County shall not expand the Urban Service Boundary unless:
• There is inadequate vacant land within the USB to accommodate the projected 25 year demand for urban uses; and
• The proposal calling for such expansion can satisfy the requirements of a master water plan as contained in the Conservation Element; and
• The proposal calling for such expansion can satisfy the requirements of the Sacramento County Air Quality Attainment Plan; and
• The area of expansion does not incorporate open space areas for which previously secured open space easements would need to be relinquished; and
• The area of expansion does not include the development of important natural resource areas, aquifer recharge lands or prime agricultural lands;
• The area of expansion does not preclude implementation of a Sacramento County-adopted Habitat Conservation Plan;

OR

• The Board approves such expansion by a 4/5ths vote based upon on finding that the expansion would provide extraordinary environmental, social or economic benefits and opportunities to the County.

If this expansion request was before the County this is the policy that would guide decision-making regarding SOIA. We recognize that the policy does not bind the decisions of the City of Elk Grove, nor does it strictly bind Sacramento LAFCo decisions. Yet in many ways the policy gets to the heart of LAFCo’s mandates to consider the need for expanding jurisdictional spheres, to protect prime agricultural demand and to ensure adequate services.

Yet, surprisingly, the RDEIR finds that the proposed SOIA is consistent with the policy under the self-limiting logic that no land use changes are proposed that would require expanding the USB:

Consistent: The SOIA Area is currently within the jurisdiction of the County of Sacramento and is entirely outside of the County’s General Plan USB. However, no land uses changes are proposed that would require expanding the USB.

That is entirely beside the point. The simple fact is that approval of the SOIA would lead to the inevitable urban development that the USB is designed to limit. The question at hand is whether the proposed SOIA, if implemented, would be consistent with the county’s policy. We believe that we have provided ample evidence that it would not be. Both the RDEIR and the Commissioners’ approval of the project are deficient in not adequately taking this into account.

Note that Policy LU-127 does give guidance on when it would be appropriate, despite the required findings, to approve USB expansion. They can, by a supermajority vote, find that the expansion would provide extraordinary environmental, social or economic benefits and opportunities to the County.

So it would stand to reason, that LAFCo commissioners might want to consider the same context in their decision regarding the Kammerer/99 SOIA’s approval. Yet what we heard at the meeting were the same “business as usual” types of justifications for approving the project: Elk Grove needs to grow, the project will provide jobs, new development will help Elk Grove improve its job’s housing balance and the like. These are reflected in the Findings of Fact and Overriding Concern, which were not made available to the public until just prior to the hearing, without adequate opportunity for public review and consideration. Nowhere can we find, in either the written or the spoken comments at the hearing, that there were any extraordinary benefits for approving the project despite its inconsistency with County Policy, LAFCo mandates and common sense.

Moreover, your Commission’s decision, in starting the process to allow Elk Grove’s expansion beyond the USB, provides justification to not only Folsom in the area south of its current limits, but the County itself, in the huge North Precinct Development, to justify expansion of the Urban Service Boundary, entirely in the absence of any extraordinary justification, thus continuing the cycle of sprawl many citizens in this County are dedicated to ending.

In view of this, and if for no other reason, we ask that you reconsider your justification and your findings in approving the project.

Sincerely,

Robert Burness, Habitat 2020 Co Chair
Attachments


Click here for a PDF of this letter.

Click here for more background on this issue.

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.

LAFCo Hearing May 2 re Elk Grove Expansion

Dear Advocates for Farmland and Wildlife, as summarized by our partner, the Friends of Swainson’s Hawk:

It is time again to stand up for sound planning. LAFCo will hold a hearing on whether to reconsider their 4-3 decision 2/7/18 to allow a landowner Sphere of Influence amendment to Elk Grove. This approval to allow conversion of 1,156 acres of farmland is actually a huge change in planning for growth. The staff report recommends denying the reconsideration hearing due to lack of new information. Reconsideration has been requested both by Suzanne Pecci (Elk Grove resident) on water issues, and by environmentalists on a number of issues.

You can help by sending an email to LAFCo Commissioners commissionclerk[at]saclafco[dot]org urging that the Commissioners grant a reconsideration hearing because the issues are big and complex and there are 22 significant and unavoidable impacts of the decision that won’t ever be fully mitigated. These include negative impacts on farmland and agriculture in Sacramento County.

It is always helpful for people to show up at the hearing to show their concern and interest.

Here is the link to our webpage with more references. You can find our letter asking for reconsideration there and also the link to the staff report.
http://www.swainsonshawk.org/Kammerer99.html

PLEASE COPY US ON YOUR EMAIL at swainsonshawk[at]sbcglobal[dot]net.

Thank you for your support.

Can Sacramento County save its farmers? Not if Elk Grove expands

By Judith Lamare and James P. Pachl

May 01, 2018

Special to The Sacramento Bee

On Feb. 7, four Sacramento LAFCo commissioners began unraveling of decades of agricultural protection, orderly urban growth and open space planning that relied on a firm urban limit at Elk Grove’s southern boundary.

The split decision by the Local Agency Formation Commission — three commissioners voted no — gave Elk Grove the go-ahead to plan development on 1,156 acres of farmland. Elk Grove’s presentation made clear that it intends to pave over much more than this in coming years.

Environmental groups have asked the commission to reconsider its decision on Wednesday, based on a state law that requires it to ensure orderly growth and preserve farmland and open space when it considers changes in city boundaries.

Vacant land within existing city limits is supposed to be a key factor in calculating whether a sphere of influence expansion onto farmland is needed to accommodate growth. In Elk Grove, there are about 4,000 acres of vacant land zoned and available for development, including 1,800 acres where residential projects remain unbuilt, some for more than a decade. The LAFCo executive director’s report misled the public and commissioners by counting as “vacant” only the land that did not have project approvals. Plenty of vacant land exists inside Elk Grove’s present boundaries for growth.

The commission adopted a statement prepared by staff to dismiss 22 significant and unavoidable impacts that cannot be fully mitigated, including loss of farmland and open space and further groundwater depletion. Also, the sphere of influence amendment conflicts with the Metropolitan Transportation Plan that underpins all federal and state funding. Notably not discussed by the commission was the additional cost to the public to acquire right of way for the planned Capital Southeast Connector bordering the expansion area due to land speculation it causes.

At the core of this decision is the future of farming and Sacramento County’s agricultural economy. One commissioner implied that the decision would not harm farming because so little of the land is defined as “prime.” Yet the environmental report identified significant impacts on agriculture that cannot be mitigated.

If we are only prepared to save “prime” farmland, then California’s agricultural fabric will become more tattered and unsustainable. That fabric includes different kinds of farmland and an infrastructure supporting an industry that produced more than $500 million in revenue last year in Sacramento County.

If the commission doesn’t reverse its decision, we are facing a dramatic loss of farmers in our region.

Click here to view the article on the SacBee website.