WHEREAS, the Lower American River provides a beautiful place for Sacramento-area families to connect with nature, enjoy quality outdoor time together, and inspire children to learn about science; and
WHEREAS, the Lower American River and the American River Parkway generate about 8,000,000 visitor days per year making this resource one of the most popular recreational areas in the Sacramento region; and
WHEREAS, the Lower American River, the American River Parkway, and Sutter’s Landing Park provide vital habitat for a wide variety of wildlife including the Swainson’s Hawk (California threatened species), the White-tailed kite (species of special concern), river otters, and many other wildlife species; and
WHEREAS, there are very limited opportunities for Sacramento area residents to access the southern banks of the Lower American River or enjoy significant natural areas along the river’s southern banks within the City of Sacramento; and
WHEREAS, Sacramento area residents have rated parks, trails and recreation areas as the amenities most in need of investment and have rated large habitats for walking and hiking where interpretive and educational programs can take place as their top priority for the type of park and recreational facilities to be provided in the future; and
WHEREAS, the Governor and the California Legislature established the Lower American River Conservancy Program to assist local governments in protecting, restoring, and expanding wildlife areas and public access along the Lower American River and voters recently approved millions of dollars of state park bond funding for this purpose; and
WHEREAS, the City of Sacramento has the opportunity to establish one of California’s most significant urban riverside parks by expanding Sutter’s Landing Park to the west of the existing park when these lands become available from willing landowners and protecting and restoring existing open space areas; and
WHEREAS, expanding and improving Sutter’s Landing Park will provide Sacramento diverse population with a tremendous natural area that can readily connect children and other community members with nature in the heart of our city; and
WHEREAS, expanding Sutter’s Landing Park to the west is necessary to help fill the existing gap in the Two Rivers Trail gap between 16th Street and the current Sutter’s Landing Park; and
WHEREAS, each generation has a responsibility to leave our children and future generations with an improved environment and affordable recreational opportunities.
WHEREAS, the opportunity to place lands near Sutter’s Landing into public ownership has arisen, and should be seized;
WHEREAS, ECOS has long supported conservation of the American River Parkway and supports conserving and restoring the lands adjacent to Sutter’s Landing that are now in private ownership;
WHEREAS, it is important that the design process of the eventual public park be open and collaborative across Sacramento’s many communities;
WHEREAS, the park should have modern facilities, including adequate restrooms, and be designed to be accessible and useful for all;
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Environmental Council of Sacramento respectfully urges the Mayor of Sacramento, the City Council of Sacramento, the Sacramento County Board of Supervisors, and the Wildlife Conservation Board to:
1. Make expansion, protection, restoration, and improvement of Sutter’s Landing Park a priority.
2. Support educational programs at Sutter’s Landing Park and along the American River Parkway to provide children with information about the river’s contribution to the natural and cultural history of our region.
3. Support and allocate funding to make Sutter’s Landing Park one of California’s greatest urban natural oasis providing our communities and other visitors with ready connection to nature and one of America’s most beautiful rivers.
AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT ECOS will transmit this resolution to the Mayor of Sacramento, Members of the Sacramento City Council, Members of the Sacramento County Board of Supervisors, and Members and Staff of the Wildlife Conservation Board.
Tag Archives: Habitat Conservation
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
Suit filed to block step toward annexation of land by Elk Grove
June 5, 2018
By Ben van der Meer
The Sacramento Business Journal
A coalition of environmental groups has filed suit to block a step that the city of Elk Grove must take before it can annex more than 1,100 acres to the south.
The plaintiffs, led by the Environmental Council of Sacramento, filed suit in Sacramento County Superior Court alleging that an environmental impact report for the move doesn’t adequately address impacts on water, loss of farmland and at-risk species such as the sandhill crane and Swainson’s hawk.
The suit also claims that the Sacramento Local Agency Formation Commission went against its stated policies to discourage sprawl when it approved a sphere-of-influence amendment for Elk Grove earlier this year.
. . .
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.
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
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.