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.

ECOS to RT re Fare Increases

In response to Sacramento Regional Transit District’s proposal to increase ticket fares ECOS has released the following statement:

For many years, ECOS has supported transit (Sacramento Regional Transit in particular) as an essential alternative to the over reliance on automobiles for transportation in the Sacramento region. We are therefore very concerned about the proposed fare increase that was presented at the January 25, 2016 RT Board meeting, since increased fares will invariably decrease ridership. The current fare increase disproportionately impacts transit dependent riders — including seniors, the disabled, and people on low income — many of whom live in already underserved areas.

Occasional fare increases are probably inevitable just to stay in step with general cost inflation. But it would be wise to proceed in small steps, at roughly five percent increments. At the same time, RT must strive to implement reforms already under discussion, such as reinstituting transfers, better enforcing fare payment, and restoring as much service as possible, in order to restore ridership to prerecession levels. To provide a minimally acceptable level of transit service in Sacramento County will require increased public funding. Transit got shortchanged in the last Measure A, and future transportation measures will need to provide a much higher level of financial support for transit.

Wilton Rancheria Casino – A Look at Proposed Sites

February 29, 2016

The Environmental Council of Sacramento has submitted a comment letter on our behalf as well as on the behalf of Habitat 2020, Sierra Club Sacramento Group and Save Our Sandhill Cranes regarding the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the proposed Wilton Rancheria Casino Project.

Read the letter by clicking here or on the image below.

Sacramento County Plastic Bag Ban

Yes, the City of Sacramento has banned plastic bags as of January 1st, 2016!

The County of Sacramento, however, has yet to make the same move.

ECOS fully supports the single-use plastic bag ban in Sacramento County.

Here’s your chance to weigh in on the burden of plastic bags. Contact the Board of Supervisors in the form of a phone call, e-mail, letter, or attending their workshop on Tuesday March 8, 2016 at 2:00 pm (in the Board of Supervisors chambers). Show where YOU stand on plastic bags! Any help is greatly appreciated.

As you may know, the organization Californians Against Waste is working diligently on upholding the statewide plastic bag ban. That effort involves assisting local jurisdictions in implementing their own bans. Sacramento County is en route to adopting a single-use plastic bag ban that will eliminate plastic bag litter in the rivers, parks, and communities throughout the area. It will also save the county countless tax dollars spent to clean-up the 4 million plastic bags that are distributed weekly in unincorporated Sacramento County. And of course, the benefit to wildlife will be priceless.

District 1, Phil Serna, (916) 874-5485, SupervisorSerna[at]saccounty[dot]net
District 2, Patrick Kennedy, (916) 874-5481, SupervisorKennedy[at]saccounty[dot]net
District 3, Susan Peters, (916) 874-5471, susanpeters[at]saccounty[dot]net
District 4, Roberta MacGlashan, (916) 874-5491, macglashanr[at]saccounty[dot]net
District 5, Don Nottoli, (916) 874-5465, nottolid[at]saccounty[dot]net

Some useful information:

Single-use plastic bags are expensive to clean up, environmentally damaging, and an easily preventable source of litter.
California’s Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery found that less than 5% of these single-use plastic bags are recycled in California.
Even when properly disposed of, bags tend to blow out of trash cans, solid waste vehicles and off the face of the County’s Keifer Landfill landing in the county’s parks and waterways.
Much of the county’s plastic eventually washed out through the Delta into San Francisco Bay and then to coastal waters.
147 cities and counties, including the City of Sacramento, have adopted local restrictions on single-use plastic bags which have been to be both popular and effective.
In unincorporated Sacramento County, almost 4 million bags are distributed every week, which means that each day without a ban contributes about 540,000 bags to the problem.
The local Material Recovery Facility shuts down on average 6 times per day to remove plastic bags from their sorting equipment.
The Sacramento County Environmental Commission recommends this ordinance.

Flex your citizen power. Encourage the Board of Supervisors to pass a plastic bag ban in Sacramento County!

Contact:
Genevieve Abedon
Californians Against Waste
genevieveabedon[at]cawrecycles[dot]org

Regional Transit seeks input on fare increases

At the RT Board of Directors meeting held on January 25, 2016, RT staff presented a financial update and fare change proposal, which outlined a plan to increase fares by approximately 20 percent, effective July 1, 2016. The draft fare change proposal and Title VI Fare Equity Analysis are available for review at sacrt.com.

RT staff will present a recommendation to the RT Board of Directors on Monday, March 14, 2016, at 6 p.m. at the RT Auditorium (1400 29th Street at N Street).

The public is encouraged to provide feedback during the 30-day comment period from February 1 through March 1, 2016. RT will hold five open houses to discuss proposed fare changes and receive public comments. The public can also provide comments via an online survey, email, mail or phone.

Remaining Open Houses:

Tuesday, February 16
Noon to 7 p.m.
RT Auditorium
1400 29th Street, Sacramento
Accessible by light rail to the 29th Street Station, and Routes 38, 67 and 68

Wednesday, February 17
10 a.m. to 2 p.m.
Arcade Library
2443 Marconi Avenue, Sacramento
Accessible by Routes 25 and 26

Tuesday, February 23
Noon to 7 p.m.
Citrus Heights Community Center
6300 Fountain Square Drive, Citrus Heights
Accessible by Routes 1, 23 and 95

Thursday, February 25
Noon to 7 p.m.
Cosumnes River College – Winn Center
8401 Center Parkway, Sacramento
(East entrance off of Bruceville Road)
Accessible by light rail to the Cosumnes River College Station, and Routes 54, 55 and 56

At the RT Board of Directors meeting held [on January 25, 2016], RT staff presented a financial update and fare change proposal, which outlined a plan to increase fares by approximately 20 percent, effective July 1, 2016.

Details of the proposal can be found online at sacrt.com. The proposed new fare structure is as follows:
Basic Single Fare – $3.00
Discount Single Fare – $1.50
Basic Daily Pass – $7.50
Discount Daily Pass – $3.75
Basic Monthly Pass – $120.00
Basic Semi-Monthly Pass – $65.00
Student Semi-Monthly Sticker – $30.00
Student Semi-Monthly Sticker (Free/Reduced Lunch) – $20.00
Senior/Disabled Monthly Sticker – $70.00
Senior/Disabled Semi-Monthly Sticker – $35.00
Paratransit Single Fare – $6.00
Paratransit Monthly Pass – Discontinued
Light rail single fare ticket time limit reduced from two hours to 90 minutes
Concerns about the adverse effects the proposal would have on the disabled community and ridership overall dominated the conversation late into the evening.

For more information, visit sacrt.com.