Tag Archives: Habitat

Folsom annexation blues

October 20, 2016

By Scott Thomas Anderson

Sacramento News and Review

Showered by developer cash camouflaged through a political action committee, the Folsom City Council has quietly led an aggressive annexation campaign that could impact traffic, air quality and wildlife in northeast Sacramento County for decades to come.

[…]

The Environmental Council of Sacramento has raised concerns about the plan, including the impacts on smog and traffic, the effects on hawks and migratory birds and—most prominently—its seeming reliance on a nonexistent stable source of water: The city council voted in 2013 to supply thousands of future residents of the development with surplus water from conservation efforts within Folsom’s perilous local supply.

“They overallocated their water,” said Matt Baker, land use and conservation policy director at ECOS. “They’ve really not provided any kind of plan for an event that could drastically reduce their supply in an extremely dry year.”

Read the full article here: https://www.newsreview.com/sacramento/folsom-annexation-blues/content?oid=22531569

CEQA Workshop hosted by ECOS August 15

ECOS Presents a CEQA Workshop!

What is CEQA and How do you Conduct an Effective CEQA Review?

ECOS is hosting a training for ECOS members on understanding the CEQA process and how to comment effectively. Our focus is a practical look at CEQA and what ECOS committees do when they review a CEQA document. Our topics include:

  • CEQA process overview
  • Conducting an analysis of a Biological Section
  • Conducting an analysis of a Land Use Section
  • Conducting an analysis of an Air Quality/Transportation Section
  • Real examples of Mitigation Measures

Join us for an evening of discussion and learning about an important California public disclosure law.

Speakers include: Sean Wirth, Rob Burness, Melinda Dorin Bradbury and others.

When: August 15, 2016 6 – 8 pm

Where: Breathe CA Conference Room 909 12th Street, Sacramento – Breathe CA conference room is on first floor. People will need to ring the bell for Breathe CA at the door and identify themselves

Cost: Free to ECOS Members (become a member here)

RSVP: You have to RSVP because space is limited to 30. CEQA Workshop RSVP’s

DRAFT AGENDA

6:00 – 6:10 pm Introductions (Brandon Rose)

6:10 – 6:30 pm CEQA overview, What is CEQA (Melinda Dorin Bradbury)

6:30 – 6:50 pm Analysis of Biological Resources (Sean Wirth)

6:50 – 7:10 pm Analysis of Land Use (Rob Burness)

7:10 – 7:30 pm Analysis of Air Quality and Transportation (Earl Withycombe)

7:30 – 8:00 pm Going through real life examples Q&A (panel discussion)

American Medical Association warns of health and safety problems from ‘white’ LED streetlights

June 17, 2016

By Richard G. ‘Bugs’ Stevens

The Conversation

The American Medical Association (AMA) has just adopted an official policy statement about street lighting: cool it and dim it.

The statement, adopted unanimously at the AMA’s annual meeting in Chicago on June 14, comes in response to the rise of new LED street lighting sweeping the country. An AMA committee issued guidelines on how communities can choose LED streetlights to “minimize potential harmful human health and environmental effects.”

Can communities have more efficient lighting without causing health and safety problems?

Read more here: https://theconversation.com/american-medical-association-warns-of-health-and-safety-problems-from-white-led-streetlights-61191

Sacramento Tree Ordinance Update

Summary of Law and Legislation Committee Recommendation on Tree Ordinance Revise

May 10, 2016

City of Sacramento Law and Legislation Committee recommended approval (3-0) of the proposed Tree Ordinance with following changes:

1. Posting of tree removal shall be 15 calendar days (Harris)

2. Expanding the definition of public nuisance to more specifically refer to Dutch elm disease and another specific tree disease (Guerra).

In addition, staff presented three amendments and announced an immediate launching of a new process to replace the 1994 Urban Forest Management Plan creation process (to replace the 1994 plan) which would begin August 2016. Councilmember Guerra asked staff to report back before the Council hearing with on a plan to communicate with neighborhood associations about tree removal. Harris asked staff and to commit to reporting back to Council on implementation of the ordinance after one year (Harris).

Councilmember Harris who has been Council lead on this effort, stated that competing interests are involved and he had worked diligently with staff to seek suitable compromise on issues presented by the all stakeholders, including the public. He believes all public comment has been thoroughly considered. Harris stated that the revised ordinance protects thousands more trees, has tree replacement requirements, a replacement fund and security to back up replacement requirements, prohibits topping and protects root zones of protected trees. He noted that it is not going to get any better. Larger goals such as the Climate Action Plan and canopy can be addressed in the Urban Forest Management Plan update.

Without our efforts, these key improvements noted by Councilmember Harris would not have occurred. We can take pride that the ordinance is now “squared up” with the General Plan policies and common sense CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act) requirements such as guarantees that mitigation for tree removal is actually delivered. Sadly perhaps, it took a full scale community effort to get these corrections made.

We do have concerns that the recommended language makes it easier for staff to remove protected trees because broad authority is given to the Director of Public Works, criteria to be used are subjective, and existing language prohibiting harmful actions is not included in the recommended ordinance. Specifically, there is nothing in the ordinance which would require Urban Forestry to deny removal of a structurally-sound, protected tree. And we are seeing a lot of this. Last week it was 30 protected trees on R Street and several on West El Camino approved to be removed for public improvement projects.

We will keep you advised of the upcoming Council hearing on this issue.

For more information, please visit www.ecosacramento.net/trees4sacramento.

North Natomas Precinct Update, May 3, 2016

Natomas North Precinct – Notice of Preparation of Draft Environmental Impact Report

Sacramento County is processing an application for the Natomas North Precinct Master Plan located in the Natomas community of unincorporated Sacramento County. The Project site is located north of the City of Sacramento, west of Steelhead Creek, south of the Sutter County Line, and east of Highway 99. The County Project Control Number is PLNP2014-00172 and the State Clearinghouse Number is 2016042079.

As the lead agency for the Natomas North Precinct Master Plan Project (Project), Sacramento County has determined that an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is the appropriate California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) document to evaluate the environmental consequences of the Project. Sacramento County published a Notice of Preparation on April 28, 2016.

Scoping Meeting on May 16, 2016

In order to provide additional opportunities for agencies and members of the public to comment on the scope and content of the environmental information to be included in the EIR, a public scoping meeting will be held. The meeting time, date, and location are as follows:

Time: 6:00 to 7:30 PM
Date: May 16, 2016
Location: South Natomas Community Center, 2921 Truxel Road, Sacramento, CA 95833

At the scoping meeting, staff will explain the environmental review process at the beginning of the meeting and the applicant will follow with a short project review. Staff will then be available to receive comments on the scope of the EIR in break-out stations.

Public Comments due May 31, 2016

It is not necessary to attend the EIR Scoping Meeting in order to provide comments on what is addressed in the EIR. Written comments can be submitted to the Sacramento County Planning and Environmental Review Division (Attn: Catherine Hack, Environmental Coordinator) via email at CEQA[at]saccounty[dot]net, or via mail at 827 7th Street, Room 225, Sacramento, CA 95814. Please contact Sheryl Lenzie, Project Manager, at 916-874-7722 or lenzies[at]saccounty[dot]net with requests or questions.

Here’s the link to the Notice of Preparation: http://www.per.saccounty.net/PlansandProjectsIn-Progress/Documents/Natomas%20Joint%20Vision/2016-04-28%20North%20Precinct%20NOP.pdf

Here’s a link to the ECOS comment letter submitted in December 2015: https://www.ecosacramento.net/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/bsk-pdf-manager/2015_12_December_16_Letter_to_Board_re_Natomas_Growth_106.pdf

Image featured in this post was painted by Granville Redmond