City of Sacramento Climate Action Plan/General Plan Questionnaire

Note new deadline: June 19, 2020

There is still time for city residents to participate in the 2040 General Plan update and Climate Action Plan’s virtual community questionnaire, as the deadline has been extended until June 19. The previous deadline for public input was June 5. Click here to learn more.

Sacramento City is updating their general plan, including the City’s Climate Action plan. We need Sacramento City residents to fill out this online community questionnaire to make sure everyone’s needs are represented. Participate by June 19, 2020 to help the City prioritize key proposed strategies around six general topics which will be part of the 2040 General Plan. You can choose to provide input on all six topics, or just one! You might be impressed by the ideas proposed; we were!

The six general topics presented in this virtual workshop for public input are:

Livability
Mobility
Climate Change
Environmental Justice
Economic Development
Sustainable Growth

Each of these general topics has specific questions for participants and opportunities for additional input. ECOS encourages all of our members and allies to spend approximately 30 minutes responding to this survey opportunity by June 5th, 2020. It is very important that our City government receives robust input and support from progressive, environmentally-conscious citizens.

Available in multiple languages.

Time commitment: approximately 30 minutes

Click here to participate

Jackson Township DEIR Comments

On October 31, 2019, Environmental Council of Sacramento (ECOS), Habitat 2020, 350 Sacramento, and Sierra Club provided comments on the Jackson Township Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR). Below are some excerpts from the letter, followed by a link to the letter in full.

Agricultural Resources

There is insufficient mitigation for farmland lost in the Jackson Township Specific Plan DEIR [Draft Environmental Impact Report]. By converting all this farmland to urban/suburban uses, the GHG emissions will increase due to the increased number of motor vehicle trips (more vehicle miles traveled). Moreover, loss of agricultural resources will reduce the potential for carbon sequestration in the soil by application of compost or regenerative agriculture methods, in addition to the natural processes of plant growth and soil microbial action from farming. There needs to be better mitigation measures to ensure carbon soil sequestration occurs at least as much as it would if the agricultural resources were preserved.

Biological Resources

Use of the South Sacramento Habitat Conservation Plan (SSHCP) was offered as one of the options for dealing with California Endangered Species Act (CESA) and Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA) impacts, and it was clearly stated that the hardline preserves identified in the SSHCP conservation strategy would be provided. Since the SSHCP now has its permits and is in the implementation phase, we are assuming that the Jackson Township will be affected by and compliant with the SSHCP.

Climate Change

We appreciate the opportunity to comment on Chapter 9, “Climate Change”, of the County’s Jackson Township Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR). Our greenhouse gas (GHG)-related comments are presented in the following seven sections. We first discuss the County’s past GHG-reduction commitments, because the DEIR:
I. does not accurately describe County climate planning;
II. uses inappropriate baseline data based on past planning;
III. applies inappropriate thresholds of significance; and
IV. is inconsistent with the County’s 2011 General Plan Update, associated Final Environmental Report (GP/FEIR), and Phase 1 CAP.
We also present,
V. other DEIR-related concerns.
We conclude:
VI. the DEIR is legally insufficient
VII. the County’s failure to provide promised mitigation is contrary to the General Plan.

Click here to read the letter in full
Attachment 1
Attachment 2
Attachment 3
Attachment 4
Attachment 5

Sacramento City General Plan Update and Climate Action Plan – Comments due Nov 4, 2019

The City of Sacramento has issued a Revised Notice of Preparation (NOP) of a Master Environmental Impact Report (MEIR) for the City of Sacramento 2040 General Plan Update and Climate Action Plan.

The City is initiating the 2040 General Plan Update and Climate Action Plan, consistent with the City’s requirement to revise and update the General Plan every five years, as necessary, to address significant emerging trends, recent state statutes, new issues, and to update the status of implementation measures.

As lead agency, the City of Sacramento has issued a Revised NOP to inform trustee and responsible agencies, and the public, of the decision to undertake preparation of a MEIR and to provide information and clarification for the General Plan Update and MEIR as to the existing designated Special Study Areas that are in physical proximity to the city limits. These study areas on the edge of the city were previously defined by the City over a decade ago as unincorporated areas that are of interest to the City, as the planning of the areas necessitates interjurisdictional cooperation with Sacramento County and other entities.

The Revised NOP is available on the City’s Community Development Department webpage.

The Revised NOP circulation period is from October 3, 2019 to November 4, 2019. Written comments on the scope of the MEIR will be accepted until 4 p.m. on Monday, November 4, 2019.

Please submit comments to:

Scott Johnson, Senior Planner
Community Development Department
300 Richards Boulevard, Third Floor
Sacramento, CA 95811
Email: srjohnson[at]cityofsacramento[dot]org

Additional information on the 2040 General Plan Update and Climate Action Plan is available here.

Image found at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Sacramento_from_Riverwalk.jpg

Sacramento City General Plan Update and Climate Action

Be a part of history and join the kick-off of the General Plan Update! Sacramento 2040 is the City of Sacramento’s blueprint for how and where Sacramento will grow over the next 20 years. At these family-friendly events, light food will be provided. A brief presentation will begin at 5:45 p.m. Hosted by the City of Sacramento.

The workshop dates, times and RSVP links are below. RSVP’s are requested, but not required.

April 22 | 5:30-7:30 p.m.
Hagginwood Community Center, Auditorium
3271 Marysville Boulevard, Sacramento 95815

April 25 | 5:30-7:30 p.m.
The Sam & Bonnie Pannell Community Center, Conference Room
2450 Meadowview Road, Sacramento 95832

April 29 | 5:30-7:30 p.m.
Oak Park Community Center, Room A/B
3425 Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard, Sacramento 95817

Click here to read ECOS member Sacramento 350’s “Action Alert” for the workshops.

Elk Grove General Plan

On September 26, 2018, the Environmental Council of Sacramento submitted a comment letter on the Elk Grove General Plan.

Summary

Following ECOS and Habitat 2020s’ opposition to the recently adopted Kamerrer-99 Sphere of Influence Expansion, ECOS and Habitat 2020 are primarily concerned with the “study areas” for further expansion proposed in this General Plan Update. Elk Grove’s anticipated growth can be accommodated within the existing City limits, and we find no justification for expansion beyond the Sacramento County Urban Services Boundary (USB) established in 1993 to be the ultimate growth boundary within the County. The proposal is inconsistent with the Sacramento Area Council of Governments’ (SACOG) Metropolitan Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (MTP/SCS) for meeting State mandated greenhouse gas (GHG) reductions, Federal mandates for Air Quality Attainment under the State Improvement Plan (SIP), as well as myriad regional goals for social equity, public health and natural resource conservation. There is an extreme lack of certainty that municipal water can be provided to this area without severe regional impacts, and the impacts to invaluable agricultural and biological resources by the proposal are potentially impossible to mitigate.
The justification given for study of further expansion is the need for Elk Grove to correct its job’s housing balance. This is a goal that ECOS agrees with, but, again, the housing and employment that Elk Grove anticipates to achieve from existing planning areas within the current City boundaries already far exceed that of SACOG’S projections for Elk Grove by 2040. If Elk Grove were to achieve these housing and employment projections in the SOIA as well, it would certainly have impacts on housing and employment in neighboring jurisdictions in the region.
While these proposed expansion areas are only “study areas,” it is irresponsible of the City to signal intent for growth that is so divergent from the regional plan, and where the cumulative impacts to the region would be so great.

Click here to read the full letter in PDF.

ECOS Comments on the Folsom General Plan

On June 25, 2018, ECOS submitted our comments/testimony on the latest changes to the City of Folsom’s General Plan.

Here is an excerpt:

ECOS and Habitat 2020 are greatly relieved to see that the Study Area for new City growth south of White Rock road has been removed from the General plan.

Further growth in this area would pose potentially un-mitigatable impacts to invaluable agricultural and biological resources and severely inhibit successful implementation of the South Sacramento Habitat Conservation Plan (SSHCP), currently in its final phase of adoption after decades of development.

Further growth in this area would be critically inconsistent with the Sacramento Area Council of Governments’ (SACOG) Metropolitan Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (MTP/SCS) for meeting State mandated greenhouse gas (GHG) reductions, Federal mandates for Air Quality Attainment under the State Improvement Plan (SIP), as well as myriad regional goals for social equity, public health and natural resource conservation.

Finally, ECOS is extremely concerned about the ability of the City to supply adequate water supplies to this potential growth area, or any new expansion area. With the decision to supply the City’s current expansion south of US 50 solely with conservation efforts of existing supplies, it is apparent that the City has fully allocated those supplies. We remain concerned that the City will not be able to supply the current expansion area without severe burdens on existing residents with the mandatory cut-backs in supply that the City is subject to in Dry and Extremely Dry years. We have not seen evidence that the City has yet acquired back up supplies to prevent these burdens, and given this, it is extremely difficult to see how the City could speculate on further expansion of their footprint.

Click here to read the full comment letter.