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

Sacramento County should hold the line on Natomas growth, by Rob Burness, Mar 22, 2016, Special to The Sacramento Bee

The push by regional land speculators to expand ever outward at Sacramento’s urban fringe is relentless.

Proposed condo tower has midtown looking skyward

March 20, 2016

By Ryan Lillis

The Sacramento Bee

A 13-story condo tower called Yamanee is being proposed for 25th and J streets in midtown Sacramento.

Most of the letters arriving to the City are supportive of the dense, vertical housing. Those who are in opposition point out the problems in giving the OK for Yamanee to be built higher (178 feet) than the 65-foot height limit in midtown.

On Monday, April 11, ECOS will begin looking at the Yamanee Project at our Land Use Committee Meeting.

Monday April 11th, 2016, 6:00 – 7:30 pm
Mogavero Architects, 2012 K Street, Sacramento, CA

The ECOS Land Use committee will begin evaluating a 178-foot tower at 25th and J called Yamanee, which would be the tallest residential building in midtown. William Burg with Preservation Sacramento will give a presentation. The proponents of the project have been invited to present, as well.

Read the complete agenda for the April 11th ECOS Land Use committee meeting by clicking on the image below or here.

Next supervisors must find balance in growing Sacramento County

March 18, 2016

By The Editorial Board

The Sacramento Bee

“It’s in the best interest of residents for this board and the next board to encourage more infill development within the city of Sacramento. It’s the only way to continue building a sustainable region.”

ECOS and Habitat 2020 Letter re Natomas North Precinct Plan, Dec 16, 2015 and Call to Action for hearing on Mar 23, 2016

CALL TO ACTION: On Wednesday, March 23rd, 2016 at 2:00 PM, Sacramento County will look at a new proposal to expand the Urban Services Boundary. The boundary was created in the early 1990’s to try to limit the sprawl of urbanization in the Sacramento region.

Please voice your opposition to this proposal at this critical time. Tweet, Call, Email, Write or Post on Facebook and tag County Supervisors if you can!

Attend the 2PM workshop in the Board of Supervisors chambers on Wednesday if you are able — all bodies and testimonies are appreciated!

We need to halt urban sprawl in our beautiful valley, not add to it. The proposal is not consistent with the Sacramento Area Council of Governments’ recently adopted transportation plan, or the Sacramento Air Quality Management District’s plan.

Read the article by Rob Burness of ECOS and published March 22, 2016 in the Sacramento Bee, summarizing the latest:
http://www.sacbee.com/opinion/op-ed/soapbox/article67576377.html

Some Background

The Sacramento County Board of Supervisors is considering the entitlement request of North Natomas landowners to expand the Urban Service Boundary, amend the General Plan, prepare a specific plan, and rezone 5600 acres to allow for the development of a new suburban community of 55,000 people.

Why Expanding the Urban Service Boundary is Significant and Precedent Setting

Sacramento’s adoption of an Urban Service Boundary in 1993 represented one of the first California General Plans to define a long term boundary for urban growth in a metropolitan setting. It provided sufficient land within the USB for many decades worth of growth. The USB provided the potential, with carefully considered phased growth, to at least triple the unincorporated urban population in the County.

By and large the Urban Service Boundary has been an effective planning policy. Folsom did expand beyond the boundary south of US Highway 50—as a city it is not bound by the same policies—and the County approved one minor expansion for a truck stop along Interstate 80. When Elk Grove City tried to expand its sphere way beyond the USB, the boundary’s importance weighed in the issues brought before LAFCo and their ultimate decision to deny the expansion. The boundary was an important benchmark for the analysis that led to the Water Forum Agreement, and has been, as intended, a valuable tool for planning sewer interceptors and other urban infrastructure over the last 22 plus years.

The Natomas Project would expand the Urban Service Boundary to allow a new “city” of 55,000 people. It would send the message to other cities that the USB is just a line on a map and not a significant delimiter for urban development. For all of us who want to see responsible, efficient, phased growth that gives infill a chance, moving forward with the Natomas project at this time sends exactly the wrong message. So, for us and many Sacramento residents, moving the boundary IS a big deal.

ECOS submitted a comment letter on December 16, 2015 that can be viewed here.

Mayoral candidates pledge to make walking, cycling a more viable option

March 3, 2016

By Daniel Weintraub

Special to The Bee

The next mayor of Sacramento will have a chance to make the city truly “world class” – not by subsidizing more professional sports teams or building taller office towers, but by making the city a vibrant place that people can navigate without having to use a car.

A modern city hoping to draw economic, cultural and social vitality from people on its streets must place a priority on making those streets safe and easy to use for everyone, not just motorists.