Rob Burness, a local environmentalist [and ECOS board member] who worked in the county planning office for about three decades, said the contributions pay off for developers.
“When push comes to shove, the votes follow the money,” said Burness, a member of the Environmental Council of Sacramento. “If you were to look at the significant votes, and the campaign contributions made to supervisors, you would find that they very rarely vote against a contributor.”
The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) began its first Five-Year Review (FYR) of the cleanup actions within the Aerojet Superfund Site (Site) in Rancho Cordova, California. The purpose of a FYR is to evaluate whether the cleanup actions for the Site are protective of human health and the environment.
THE REVIEW PROCESS
Superfund law requires EPA to evaluate the protectiveness of remedial systems every five years until the Site has been cleaned up sufficiently to allow unrestricted access to the property. Upon completion of the review, which is due by September 30, 2016, a copy of the final report will be placed in the information repositories listed below and online at EPA’s web page. The Site will continue to be cleaned up and monitored during the review, and the next FYR will be in 2021.
CLEANUP
The Site covers 5,900 acres near Rancho Cordova. Since 1953, Aerojet and its subsidiaries have manufactured liquid and solid propellant rocket engines for military and commercial applications, and, have in the process, formulated a number of chemicals. In addition, the Cordova Chemical Company operated chemical manufacturing facilities on the Aerojet complex from 1974 to 1979. Both companies disposed of unknown quantities of hazardous waste, including trichloroethene (TCE) and other chemicals associated with rocket propellants and various chemical processing wastes. Wastes were disposed of in man-made ponds, landfills, injected into very deep wells, rainfall and other sources mixed with waste in soil and move down to groundwater, and by open burning. In 1979, volatile organic compounds were found off-site in private wells, and, in 1983 the American River. In January 1997, perchlorate was found in drinking water wells off-site. The most prevalent contaminants in groundwater are TCE, perchlorate, and N-Nitrosodimethylamine. The Site was divided into eight sections, or operable units, to assist prioritizing the cleanup plan schedule for this Site. The Western Ground Water Operable Unit (OU-3), Perimeter Goundwater OU (OU-5) and Boundary OU (OU-6) have Record of Decisions in place. The remaining OUs where cleanup decisions will be made are OU-1, OU-4, OU-7, OU-8, and OU-9. This review will primarily cover any interim and present cleanup actions on the Site for Western Ground Water OU (OU-3) and Perimeter Goundwater OU (OU-5), which are the only two OUs with remedies in place.
COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT
If you would like to participate in the FYR process, please contact Jackie Lane, Community Involvement Coordinator at 1(415) 972-3236 or by email at lane[dot]jackie[at]epa[dot]gov no later than July 15, 2016.
CONTACT INFORMATION
For more Site information, please visit EPA’s website at web site above. For specific questions about the Site cleanup, please contact Lynn Keller, Remedial Project Manager at 1(415) 947-4162, email: keller[dot]lynn[at]epa[dot]gov.
Information repositories that house the Administrative Record are located at: Sacramento Central Library, 828 I St., Sacramento, CA 95814, (916) 264-2700; California State University, Sacramento, University Library, 2000 State University Drive, Sacramento, CA 95819, (916) 278-5679 and Superfund Records Center, 75 Hawthorne St. 3rd Floor, San Francisco, CA 94105, (415) 947-8717.
Sacramento County, in coordination with Sacramento Metro Cable 14 (the local government TV station that airs public meetings on Channel 14) has added a new LiveStream feature — public meetings. Now you can watch those government meetings on the go from your mobile device including those of the Sacramento County Board of Supervisors.
Providing greater access to the Board of Supervisors public meetings via mobile devices is part of an ongoing effort to engage citizens and demonstrate transparency of the public meeting process that is the vehicle to carry out County governance, operations and policy.
Over the last year, Sacramento County has also been working to make it easier and more efficient for residents to participate in local government decisions. Recently, the Public Comment link was made available to submit comments electronically on specific Board of Supervisors meeting agenda topics when reviewing the agenda online.
For those attending a Board of Supervisors meeting, members of the public can sign up electronically to speak via the kiosk stations located in the Board Chambers. Additionally, in April, an improved advanced search feature on public meeting agendas was implemented to make documents and information easier to find.
Sacramento, CA – The Environmental Council of Sacramento (ECOS) voted unanimously on July 18, 2016 to endorse Fair Oaks EcoHousing. According to Brandon Rose, ECOS Board President, “One of the key objectives of ECOS is to promote and reinforce Smart Growth principles. We are pleased to endorse Fair Oaks EcoHousing as an example of a sustainable infill project that will enhance the Fair Oaks Community.”
Fair Oaks EcoHousing, soon to be built on New York Avenue near Fair Oaks Boulevard, will be a cohousing community. Cohousing neighborhoods are composed of privately-owned homes clustered around shared open space and common facilities. A central clubhouse is the heart of the neighborhood for a variety of activities and typically includes a dining room, kitchen, lounge, workshop space, kids’ playroom and guest rooms. Cars are kept to the edge of the site, thus making the neighborhood pedestrian-friendly and safe for children. Future residents are involved in the design and development so that it reflects their needs and priorities, creating a truly custom neighborhood. Marty Maskall, Project Manager & Future Resident, says: “I’m looking forward to living in a friendly and sustainable neighborhood close to Fair Oaks Village. We plan to break ground in early 2017, with move-in scheduled for Spring 2018.”
Architects and authors Kathryn McCamant and Charles Durrett introduced cohousing to North America in the 1980’s after studying the movement in Denmark. They are the authors of “Creating Cohousing: Building Sustainable Communities.” There are now more than 160 cohousing communities in the United States, including 32 in California. McCamant and Durrett, a husband and wife team, have worked together on over fifty cohousing projects. They live in Nevada City Cohousing. McCamant says: “Cohousing neighborhoods across America are proving that we can live a more sustainable lifestyle that is healthier and more fun for people of all ages, as well as good for the environment.”
Cohousing neighborhoods in the Sacramento Region include Southside Park Cohousing in Sacramento, Nevada City Cohousing, Wolf Creek Lodge in Grass Valley, and three communities in Davis. A new community called Renaissance Village Homes is being formed in West Sacramento, close to Raley field. According to Dr. Alex Kelter, Co-Chair of the ECOS Land Use Committee, “I am excited to see cohousing coming to West Sacramento, and I have joined forces with the group to do my part to help create this special neighborhood.”
Environmental sustainability is a core value in cohousing neighborhoods, which combine Smart Growth, Green Design, and Quality of Life. Community is the secret ingredient of sustainability because people help each other learn to be good stewards of the land. On-site activities enable residents to socialize close to home and reduce their need to drive as much for day-to-day activities. The Fair Oaks property offers close proximity to the American River Parkway, Fair Oaks Village, Bannister Park, the Sacramento Waldorf School, and Rudolf Steiner College.
Fair Oaks EcoHousing is welcoming prospective residents at free site tours, offered twice a month. For more information , visit www.FairOaksEcoHousing.org, www.cohousing-solutions.com, www.cohousingco.com, www.cohousing.org, and www.RenaissanceVillageHomes.org.
Future Residents of Fair Oaks EcoHousing celebrating approval by Sacramento County in April 2015
The Wilton Rancheria announced Thursday that it has chosen the site of a half-built mall in Elk Grove as the preferred location for its planned resort and casino.
The federal Bureau of Indian Affairs will be asked to designate the 35.9-acre parcel along Highway 99 as the preferred alternative in the environmental impact statement, prepared in response to the tribe’s application to have the land taken into trust for the project.
ECOS believes that the unfinished mall in Elk Grove is the best site proposed for the new Casino, as stated in our letter sent to the Bureau of Indian Affairs on February 29, 2016. Click here to read that letter.
On May 31, 2016, the Environmental Council of Sacramento (ECOS), Habitat 2020 and the Sierra Club Sacramento Group submitted a comment letter on the Natomas North Precinct Master Plan Notice of Preparation. You can read the letter in text below, or view the PDF by clicking here or the image of the letter at the bottom of this page.
Department of Community Development Planning and Environmental Review Division
827 7th Street, Room 225, Sacramento, CA 95814
SUBJECT: NOTICE OF PREPARATION OF A DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE NATOMAS NORTH PRECINCT MASTER PLAN (CONTROL NUMBER: PLNP2014-00172)
Dear Ms. Hack:
These are comments from the Environmental Council of Sacramento (ECOS), with dozens of individual members and organizational members in the tens of thousands. ECOS has a history of over 4 decades of advocacy to limit sprawl, preserve agriculture, habitat and open space, and improve the quality of life while supporting growth with a vibrant and equitable economy. These comments relate to all the requested entitlements, and the Project Objectives found on NOP, pages 3-4, Objectives 1-6, except where noted.
Land Use, Transportation, Air Quality, Climate Change
The proposed Master Plan is obviously inconsistent with the Metropolitan Transportation Plan / Sustainable Communities Strategy (MTP/SCS) and with the Regional Air Quality Attainment Plan. The DEIR must include a full analysis and discussion of the project’s inconsistency with the MTP/SCS and the Regional Air Quality Attainment Plan. How this inconsistency will be mitigated (e.g., with strict project phasing) must also be addressed.
Since the proposed project is inconsistent with the MTP/SCS and the State’s mandates under SB 375 to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, the project must also, by definition, be inconsistent with the County’s Climate Action Plan. If this plan is to have any value, this inconsistency must also be addressed and mitigated.
The above inconsistencies are critically important since the project, as proposed, is a totally auto-oriented community. Regional Transit will not have the ability for many years, if ever, to provide service to this area at the proposed densities. Therefore it is critically important to establish a Transportation Services District, similar to what exists in North Natomas and portions of the Southeast County, to provide funding for transit service, connectivity and other transportation-related services.
It is important that the EIR, as a tool in assessing impacts, provide information which allows all interested parties and decision-makers to ascertain the level/degree of consistency/inconsistency with critical land use policies. The EIR must fully evaluate consistency with Sacramento County General Plan Policy LU-127. Any finding of inconsistency must be explained and where appropriate quantified, particularly with respect to the crucial finding pertaining to available holding capacity.
In addition to analysis of the “No Project” alternative, there should also be an examination of the alternative that 55,000 people will, indeed, move to Sacramento County, but will choose to reside elsewhere, say, in the northern and central portions of the City of Sacramento, choosing infill locations that are already zoned for residential development of the same or higher density as that proposed in this project. It is widely reported that modern homebuyers are preferentially seeking more compact, urban locations than large-lot, suburban locations. The continuing demand for compact, urban of housing is further bolstered by the history of the recent foreclosure crisis: while homes in Elk Grove and Natomas literally could not be given away, homes in the central city lost very little value, and recovered these losses (and then some) before any other locations did. While such an alternative may not be the preference of these developers, neither is the “No Project” alternative. But the “No Project” alternative ignores the reality that more people are, indeed, choosing to live in this region. In practical terms, if these developers end up with “No Project,” that alone will not halt the population increase. Rather, the new arrivals will live somewhere already zoned for the type of residential development they prefer. That is the comparison that should be made with the project as proposed.
The proposed project includes substantial employment and higher density residential development in order to meet General Plan policy criteria for new development at the urban fringe. The EIR must evaluate the increase in impact, particularly with respect to VMT and CO2 air quality emissions, if the development were to build out at lower, traditional levels of suburban development. The EIR must consider mitigation measures, including but not limited to phasing requirements and development moratoriums, to prevent occurrence of those adverse impacts.
There are already enough flawed assumptions in the feasibility analysis for the regional hospital to conclude that such a facility is extremely unlikely to materialize. The nation has spent the past six decades trying to reduce the ratio of hospital beds per thousand population, not increase it. Therefore, in order to properly assess the range of possible impacts of the proposed project, the EIR must include at least one alternative that does not include a regional hospital.
Water
The EIR must consider the adequacy of water to supply the development. A conclusion that the “project will be supplied by surface water supplemented with groundwater withdrawals” is inadequate. State Water Board approval of Natomas Central Mutual Water Company surface water rights from agricultural to municipal/industrial (M/I) use should not be counted upon as a given outcome. All potential sources of surface water, constraints and obstacles to obtaining them, the timing of water delivery, the potential for delivery curtailment in dry years, and overall feasibility of supplemental surface water supplies must all be thoroughly vetted.
The project is outside of the Urban Services Boundary (USB). M/I development was not assumed as part of the studies and assumptions underlying the Water Forum Agreement. The EIR must include a comprehensive analysis of the North American River Sub-basin, taking into account the buildout of approved and planned projects in Sutter and Placer Counties. The EIR analysis must complement and support sustainable groundwater planning undertaken to implement the California Sustainable Groundwater Management Act.
The EIR must include legally enforceable mitigation measures, including but not limited to phasing requirements and moratoriums, if assumed supplemental surface water supplies are not available sufficiently in advance to forestall groundwater overdraft.
As part of this analysis, the EIR must assess groundwater quality, including the presence of chromium, manganese, iron and arsenic, and its feasibility for domestic consumption. Assessment of infrastructure costs must consider the additional cost of water treatment to remove potentially harmful levels of these and other elements in groundwater supplies.
We are aware of the drainage studies performed under the auspices of the County and others over the past two decades. We believe the drainage problems are even more complex because of additional development that has occurred or been approved since the completion of these drainage studies, including those in Sutter County. The EIR must be extremely detailed as to how adequate drainage will be achieved for this project, as well as how these drainage solutions affect the project’s ability to mitigate for any proposed take of endangered species.
Growth-inducing Effects
The EIR must evaluate growth inducing impact of extending the USB to the County Line. The analysis should include speculative land price increases in the region and the resulting impact on implementing the Natomas Basin HCP, Sacramento County’s relationship to that HCP notwithstanding. The analysis should also include the regional growth-inducing impact of this, the most populous jurisdiction in the region, acting in violation of its own general plan to expand the region’s footprint in a manner inconsistent with regional plans.
Biological Resources
As proposed, this project conflicts with the Natomas Basin Habitat Conservation Plan (NBHCP). While the County declined to become a signatory to the Plan in 2003, nonetheless the proposed development would remove vital agriculture that provides habitat and foraging for at least two endangered species. Without this acreage, mitigation for this project could be rendered inconceivable, especially since other development in the area has already been approved. Those previous approvals have not yet resulted in construction, nor have their approved mitigations been implemented. When they are, the availability of mitigation acreage for this project is nil. The EIR must be explicit about the precise acreage, timing and location of mitigation land, and must demonstrate beyond doubt how compatibility with the NBHCP and already-approved mitigation for already-entitled projects will be achieved.
Specifically, the EIR needs to analyze the impact of this proposed project on the implemented Natomas Basin Habitat Conservation Plan, including, but not limited to the following:
Analysis of impact on conservation strategy implementation in the NBHCP.
Analysis of impact on effectiveness of mitigations in the NBHCP. As an example, the NBHCP stipulates a 1:1/2 acre mitigation for terrestrial non wetland habitat loss, but this was predicated on no additional development beyond that covered in the NBHCP within the basin.
Analysis of the impact on “feasibility for acquisition” for the lands needed within the available inventory for the NBHCP within the basin given that over 5600 additional acres are proposed to be removed from the inventory, and at least that amount, if not substantially more, will be needed to mitigate for the proposed development.
Analysis of the impact of potentially increased acquisition costs for acquiring mitigation lands for the NBHCP because of the increased demand resulting from trying to mitigate for this project in the same geography as the NBHCP.
EIR needs to provide substantive evidence that the loss of so much more habitat than was contemplated and covered in the NBHCP in the basin will not result in jeopardy for the Swainson’s hawk and the giant garter snake.
Analysis of the impact of removing more than 5600 acres of important habitat for the giant garter snake needs to be included. Cumulative effects need to be analyzed for the giant garter snake in this context as well.
Analysis of the impact of removing more than 5600 acres of important habitat for the Swainson’s hawk needs to be included. Cumulative effects to the Swainson’s hawk need to be analyzed in this context as well.
The EIR needs to provide all appropriate and feasible mitigations for impacts to species so that their efficacy can be analyzed, and not kick the can down the road with the deferred mitigation of indicating that such details will be worked out later with the regulatory agencies after entitlements are granted.
Financing
The environmental challenges of this project represent astounding obstacles, of a scale rarely seen in this region. The EIR must be very sound in its demonstration of how the provision of public infrastructure and services to this project can be achieved while maintaining a “neutral-to-positive fiscal impact” to the County (see NOP, page 4, Objective #8).
Infrastructure costs for internal drainage, SAFCA flood control assessments, roads and other essential services will be extensive. Parallel evaluation of these costs is essential to the EIR process. The EIR must show that mitigation measures attached to the project, particularly those that rely on developer funded implementation—and in particular those that are related to habitat mitigation requirements—will, when combined with the burden of infrastructure costs, be financially feasible.
Bonding of mitigation measures must be evaluated as part of the mitigation and monitoring program. This evaluation must be part of the draft EIR process and available for public review well before final project approvals.
Conclusion
ECOS agrees with the assumption that the population of the region and the county will grow. The purpose of the General Plan is to control future development such that it meets the stated needs of the county. Applicant must demonstrate how the proposal will help the county meet these needs, consistent with the existing General Plan, MTP/SCS, Regional Air Quality Attainment Plan, Climate Action Plan, Sustainable Groundwater Management Act, the NBHCP, and, of course, CEQA. Any requested departure from these requirements must demonstrate unequivocal and unique circumstances that outweigh the considerable constraints of those existing requirements. To the extent that one considers the provision of public infrastructure and services, themselves, as mitigation for the environmental impacts of the project, their feasibility, adequacy and their own inherent impacts must be explicated fully and compared to alternatives that do not require amendments to the General Plan, various specific plans ( listed in the NOP as “Requested Entitlements”), or new annexations to the Sanitation District and Sewer District.
The region, and the county, specifically, already have countless alternatives to meet future growth within the above requirements (well beyond the 55,000 people subsumed by this proposal). In fact, the existing General Plan subsumes much more growth than is projected by SACOG. It is incumbent on the applicant, therefore, to demonstrate how the proposal comports with the alternatives already available under the General Plan, MTP/SCS, etc. A simple “No Project” alternative that also assumes no growth anywhere else in the region, or one that fails to relate the project to at least one of these alternatives, is simply not good enough to support rational decision-making.
Sincerely,
Brandon Rose, President, Environmental Council of Sacramento (ECOS)
