ECOS statement on Measure B

Date: April 28, 2016

To: Governing Board, Sacramento Transportation Authority

From: John Deeter, co-chair, ECOS Transportation, Air Quality & Climate Change Committee

Re: Comments on proposed Measure B

The proposal for allocating Measure B revenues up for discussion today contains improvements over Options 1 and 2 presented at the April 14th Board meeting, but the Environmental Council of Sacramento believes that it still allocates far too much for new road construction and far too little for transit. Moreover, we are troubled about the lack of public involvement in drafting this measure, without a full public discussion regarding the division of revenue, the tax rate, alternative sources of funding, and the appropriateness of using sales tax revenue to build roads.

A fundamental question implicit in the current discussion of an additional county-wide transportation tax is whether Sacramento County is committed to a robust transit system or is content with continuing to accept a much smaller system persistently hobbled by inadequate public financial support. Measure B if passed would immediately provide Regional Transit with an additional $25 million per year, which would be barely sufficient to restore services that were cut eight years ago provided this allocation were used solely for this purpose. But RT has other needs as well, such as replacement or overhaul of worn-out vehicles, conversion of light rail to low floor vehicles, and slow, steady expansion of the existing skeletal bus and rail network. To achieve these goals, RT needs at least $50 million per year or a quarter-cent sales tax dedicated exclusively to its programs.

ECOS might be able to support Measure B even if it included some funding for roads, provided this money was limited to less than 40% of the total and was used primarily for road maintenance (“fix-it-first”), additional sidewalks, and more bike lanes. But the proposal currently under consideration is weighted in the opposite direction: expanding road capacity instead of promoting alternative modes of transportation, and carrying with it all the well-known negative externalities such as air pollution, global warming, and unnecessarily expensive supporting infrastructure.

We urge the STA Board to reformulate Measure B to provide better funding for transit and other non-automobile modes of transportation.

CEQA & Land Use Training April 16

Dear Sacramento Valley residents and citizens,

Here is an affordable educational opportunity to get some CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act) & Land Use training next weekend, April 16th, 2016! The Sacramento Valley Section of the American Planning Association is pleased to announce a Planning Commission Training Workshop, which includes CEQA and Land Use topics and is open to the public within the Sacramento Valley!

The Workshop will be held on:
Saturday, April 16, 2016, 9:00 am to 3:00 pm
West Sacramento Community Center (1075 West Capitol Avenue, West Sacramento)
Cost $25 [registration cost covers coffee and light breakfast in the morning, lunch and afternoon cookies]

ECOS is in serious need of volunteers with knowledge in these areas. Don’t miss this opportunity to increase your own valuable environmental expertise, and feel free to share this invitation with your networks!

Agenda

Flyer: http://files.ctctcdn.com/ab56286d401/12e349a3-ce3b-49c6-b26c-baf1fcfe0c06.pdf

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.

Sacramento County bans plastic bags beginning July 1

March 22, 2016

By Brad Branan

The Sacramento Bee

The Board of Supervisors voted 4-1 Tuesday in favor of the ban, joining Sacramento and about 150 other communities in the state that have banned plastic bags that are not reusable. Supervisors said they wanted to end the use of such bags to protect the environment because they essentially last forever.

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 on Expanding the Urban Services Boundary in Natomas, Dec 16, 2015

The Sacramento County Board of Supervisors announced today that they have moved their workshop on the plan to expand the Urban Services Boundary north of Natomas from tomorrow, December 16th, 2015 to March 8, 2016. ECOS’ comments on how expanding the boundary would allow for a whole new area of urban sprawl when we should instead be focusing on infill development and reaping the co-benefits were submitted on December 15th, 2015.

We hope that your Board understands the significance of your actions regarding expanding the USB north to the Sutter County line. We understand that this is only a step in a long process of considering entitlement approval. But you have authorized entering into contracts for over $7 million worth of studies and work to figure out the details of creating a new town of 55,000 people, and you have authorized preparation of a $1 million Environmental Impact Report to consider the impacts. You are proceeding as if this is a done deal only requiring the planning details to be worked out. And you are doing so without having fully and publicly addressed the significant issues associated with the threshold decision of whether this development should proceed at all, in this time frame, or under the auspices of the County rather than the City. Please consider our request to put the project on hold while you undertake a serious and unbiased review and hold a public discussion on the important concerns we are raising.

Tag Archives: Sacramento County