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.
Alternatives to the Proposed Projects
The glaring deficiency in this SEIR is the lack of an Increased Density/Intensity Alternative.
Land Use, Transportation, Air Quality, Climate Change
ECOS believes that the requested zoning should include a minimum as well as a maximum number of housing units. Virtually all of the mitigations for Transportation, Air Quality and Climate change involve the enrichment of alternatives to automobile travel to, from and within the project. Other than automobile travel, all the other modes of transportation benefit from higher densities and more residential development, irrespective of the correction of any jobs/housing mismatch. Furthermore, the expensive infrastructure improvements necessitated by the project will not be as efficient at the proposed densities as they would at increased densities.
The addition of the Kaiser Permanente Medical Center (KP) provides ample basis on which to create plans for all-income housing development that would be synchronized with the creation of jobs in the project. Projects of this nature often favor early scheduling of commercial development, followed later, much later or never, by commensurate housing development. This pattern fosters the creation of undesirable patterns of housing, transportation, land speculation and delayed creation of public amenities that collectively depress the success of the integrated and holistic downtown desired by the City and by ECOS. An employer like KP includes one of the widest ranges of salaries imaginable, from low-skilled to some of the highest-skilled in society today. Of all the ways to bring a wide variety of income levels to the project, this has to be one of the most effective. This is an opportunity that should not be squandered by timidity.
At its current capacity for growth, RT is struggling to figure out how to keep up with the proposed growth in the region. Much of this struggle is exacerbated by the relatively timid densities being proposed, including this project. As is often proposed as part of other projects in the region, ECOS would like to see the development of an aggressive Transportation Services District as part of this project. We believe that a fee assessment on a dwelling unit equivalent basis would provide support to RT, or a private shuttle provider, as well as support the functions of the Transportation Management Association.
A further boon to the mode share for RT for trips to, from and within the project would result from a program to make every ticket sold for an event at large venues in the project (e.g., the soccer stadium, major events in public spaces at the Railroad Museum, etc.) also serve as a day pass for unlimited rides on RT. We understand this is being considered by the Golden 1 Center and should also be a part of this project.
To this end the following mitigation steps are presented:
Establish a minimum residential density, say 75% of zoned maximum density, for buildout of the residential and mixed use zones
Require project phasing that requires timely construction of housing units in conjunction with construction of employment producing development
Require establishment of a fee assessment on a dwelling unit equivalent basis to provide enhanced transit support as recommended above
Require that agreements are in place prior to building permit approval that enable all tickets sold at large venues within the project area to be used as transit day passes.
Growth-inducing Effects
For this project, ECOS has no qualms about inducing growth in the vicinity of the project. In fact, the more growth induced near the project, the better. We believe the developers and the City agree with us. All the more reason why there should be a robust Increased Density/Intensity Alternative.
Conclusion
The efficacy of an Increased Density/Intensity Alternative should not be underestimated. A vast array of desirable outcomes accompanies higher densities than are proposed by the project, a location already zoned for the highest densities in the City, but one that could be painfully underutilized by the project as proposed. Smart growth is most successfully enabled when the residential and transportation infrastructure development occur prior to the successive stages of build-out, and thereby structure and guide them. Without this, we will suffer from substantial pressure to put these essential features in parts of the City that are not currently zoned for them, further weakening the excellent General Plan.
NOTICE: There will be a public meeting of the City Planning & Design Commission on the proposed Railyards project in Sacramento.
When: Thursday, June 30th
5:30 Commission Training on Principals and Terminology
6:30 Railyards Review and Comment
Where: E.M. Hart Senior Center, 915 27th St, Sacramento, CA 95816.
Background
The Sacramento Railyards project is one of the largest contiguous infill opportunities in the nation. The 2007 Specific Plan for the project estimated the construction of approximately 10,000 to 12,000 new dwelling units of varying types within the Plan Area. The city of Sacramento has stated that we need 10,000 more residential units downtown to correct the jobs-housing imbalance in the urban core. In November 2015, Railyards planners were stating that they had changed the plan to include only about 6,000 housing units. In response, the Environmental Council of Sacramento (ECOS) and Mike McKeever of the Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG) both expressed concerns about this reduction in housing units.
The Latest
On June 13, 2016, Alan Hersh LDK Ventures, the project’s developer, presented to ECOS at our Land Use Committee meeting. You can view the full minutes from the meeting, including his presentation, here. Hersh said they are “getting an entitlement for 10,000 units.” The zoning entitlement allows for a maximum of 10,000 housing units, but there won’t be a minimum requirement of units to actually get built, although this requirement could be created in the zoning. Hersh says only 6,000-8,000 units are probably realistic and that the density that works in the current market is 4-6 stories wrapped around central parking. This allows for wood frame buildings and will result in significant cost-savings per square foot.
What’s Next?
ECOS is disappointed that the number of units has been so drastically slashed and we hope that number will rise again. This is major infill proposal that could potentially do a lot to improve the jobs-housing balance in Sacramento and potentially set an example for a successful smart growth, infill, brownfield development for the rest of the country to consider.
Take Action
Make sure your voice is heard as the plans for this major development are being formed.
Contact the Planning and Design Commission and City Council via email, letters, phone calls and social media.
Attend the June 30th meeting if you are able and interested in flexing your civic power.
View early design concepts of the Railyards and provide feedback directly to the Railyards planning team here.
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)
The Environmental Council of Sacramento (ECOS) submitted our comments on the proposed Yamanee Project, P15-047 (“Yamanee”) to the City of Sacramento’s Planning and Design Commission on May 9, 2016. ECOS then provided testimony supporting the letter at the Planning and Design Commission hearing on Thursday, May 12, 2016. On May 26, 2016, ECOS submitted the same comment letter to Mayor Johnson, City Councilmembers, City Staff and City Planner John Shirey, as we believe our concerns should be of vital importance to the Council’s deliberations.
Read our comment letter below.
The Environmental Council of Sacramento (ECOS) has long advocated for less growth at urban Sacramento’s fringe in favor of a greater focus on infill and redevelopment. We support land use plans that are in line with realistic growth expectations, are environmentally sensitive, and while cognizant of neighborhood values, not beholden to them. We also believe that once adopted, local governments need to follow those plans.
The ECOS Land Use Committee has reviewed the Yamanee Project at 25th and J Street, which certainly offers a bold infill project: a 14 story building with a residential density of around 300 units/acre. It is located on a well used bus route and is close to downtown Sacramento jobs.
But the project proposes a 178 foot tall structure in an area zoned for a maximum height of 80 feet (approximately 6 stories)—almost 100 feet greater than the zoning requirement. The only other structure in Midtown of comparable height is Sutter Hospital.
The zoning code does allow for a “deviation” from the zoning code height restriction if the approving body finds that the project is balanced by significant benefits. So far as we aware this is the first height deviation request since adoption of the land use and zoning plans. It is not only a significant deviation in scale, but a precedent setting deviation.
We urge that your Planning Commission carefully consider the justification for the deviation. In an earlier era this would be called a variance—an exception which state law requires findings that there is not a grant of special privilege and that there are unique and special circumstances associated with the property that justify the granting of the variance. Sacramento City’s deviation language was created to avoid those mandated findings, but your Commission would be well advised to reflect on them as you make your decision.
So far the only justification for the project we have heard is that it will be LEED certified and that the architectural design will enhance the J Street corridor. But these are things your Commission should be expecting of all development—they are certainly not of and by themselves a justification for granting a right to more than double the size and density allowed by the zoning. The building would be exempt from the requirement to provide affordable housing, but this upscale project has yet to offer to contribute to affordable housing opportunity in the neighborhood.
And the argument that a building of this height only works at this location, or is not precedent setting, is disingenuous. It is not a basis for granting the exception. The rationale for granting the deviation is the important thing—it will be cited for any project that seeks a deviation whatever its height.
The decision you make will send an important message to landowners and developers in Midtown. It could well impact land values and speculative purchases in a way that changes the character of the neighborhood. If so you will have started a process that undermines implementation of a plan developed with community participation and compromise that would disserve the City and its residents.
ECOS welcomes infill and higher density, but not at the expense of effectively implementing adopted plans. We urge you to set the bar high in weighing the proferred community benefits in exchange for the “special privilege” of a precedent setting height deviation.
To this end, ECOS could support a significant project deviation if the project’s community benefit could justify it. A possible community benefit is the provision of workforce housing units. Yamanee proposes approximately 134 units, and the Sacramento Housing Alliance conservatively estimates that an ownership housing infill project such as Yamanee generates a workforce housing demand of about 15%, or 20 units for Yamanee. ECOS could support a significant project deviation if Yamanee provided mixed income housing sufficient to meet community demand, including approximately 20 units of workforce housing (or 15% of units for any final project). Other desirable community benefits should include facilities to accommodate the expected Sacramento bike sharing program and enhanced transit shelter facilities.
While ECOS commends the City’s efforts to provide housing in the Sacramento grid, to date the significant portion of it has been unaffordable even to moderate income persons. Yamanee’s deviations set a precedent for how and whether development honors existing plans and community agreements. Offsetting the deviations with community benefits that meet actual community need would help ensure the precedent places community need first.
Sincerely,
Brandon Rose, President of the Environmental Council of Sacramento (ECOS)
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.
Join the Environmental Council of Sacramento (ECOS) for our Board of Directors meeting!
In May, we are hosting a presentation with Rich Radmacher and Bill Ziebron on the long-awaited and much-needed South Sacramento Habitat Conservation Plan. We will also have a chance to discuss the plan with some of its long-time collaborators. Read more about the South Sac Habitat Conservation Plan here: http://www.southsachcp.com/
Monday, May 23rd, 2016
5:30 pm Reception with wine & refreshments
6:00 pm Meeting begins
As always:
– ECOS Committees will report on their activities.
– Announcements are welcome at the end
– Everyone who is interested is welcome! Bring a friend!
PARKING:
Please note the SEIU parking lot now requires the purchase of a permit. Street parking should be free starting at 6pm.
