ECOS Letter on North Natomas Panhandle Annexation NOP, May 2016

On May 27, 2016 ECOS submitted the comments below on the Notice of Preparation (NOP) of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Panhandle Annexation and Planned Unit Development (PUD) in North Natomas.

Attn: Dana Mahaffey SENT VIA EMAIL TO dmahaffey[at]cityofsacramento[dot]org
City of Sacramento Community Development Department
Environmental Planning Services
300 Richards Blvd, 3rd Floor
Sacramento, CA 95811

RE: Comments on Notice of Preparation of an Environmental Impact Report for the Panhandle Annexation and Planned Unit Development

Dear Ms. Mahaffey:

This letter provides initial comments from the Environmental Council of Sacramento (ECOS) and Habitat 2020 (H2020) in response to a notice of preparation application for the proposed Panhandle Annexation and Planned Unit Development in North Natomas. ECOS’ membership organizations include: 350 Sacramento, Breathe California of Sacramento-Emigrant Trails, Citizens Climate Lobby Sacramento, Friends of Stone Lakes National Wildlife Refuge, International Dark-Sky Association, Mutual Housing California, Physicians for Social Responsibility Sacramento Chapter, Sacramento Electric Vehicle Association, Sacramento Housing Alliance, Sacramento Natural Foods Co-op, Sacramento Valley Chapter of the California Native Plant Society, Sacramento Vegetarian Society, Save Our Sandhill Cranes, Save the American River Association, SEIU Local 1000 (Environmental Committee), Sierra Club Sacramento Group, and The Green Democratic Club of Sacramento.

Habitat 2020 (H2020) is a coalition of environmental organizations collaborating on common issues in and affecting, the Sacramento region. Members of Habitat 2020 include the Sacramento Audubon Society, California Native Plant Society, Friends of the Swainson’s Hawk, Save the American River Association, Save Our Sandhill Cranes, Sierra Club Sacramento Group, Friends of Stone Lakes National Wildlife Refuge and the Sacramento Area Creeks Council.

Incorporate Prior Letters in Comments

ECOS was signatory to a comment letter (attached as Attachment 1) dated December 18, 2006 in response to the Panhandle Annexation and PUD DEIR of a predecessor project. In addition, James M. Pachl, an attorney representing ECOS and other concerned organizations, submitted a letter on May 34, 2007 (attached as Attachment 2) commenting on the FEIR. Many of the concerns and comments in those letters pertaining to the evaluation of that project’s impacts are still relevant. These comments are incorporated herein by reference and we ask that you address them during the preparation of the new DEIR with the objective of providing a full and complete environmental analysis that addresses deficiencies in the prior documents.

We would also like to provide the following additional comment:

Evaluate Growth Inducing Impact of Enhanced Road Connectivity

The proposed project will provide a new through road between Del Paso Road and West Elkhorn Blvd. Del Paso Blvd represents the north boundary of the Sacramento City Limit, the Sacramento City Sphere of Influence Boundary, and the Sacramento County General Plan Urban Service Boundary. The proposed road will facilitate access to land north of West Elkhorn Blvd that is not included in any adopted plan for urban development. It is essential that the DEIR address the growth inducement potential of the planned road improvements and recommend appropriate mitigation measures.

Sincerely,

Brandon Rose, President of the Environmental Council of Sacramento (ECOS)

Attachments:
Attachment 1 – Comment letter dated December 18, 2006 in response to the Panhandle Annexation and PUD DEIR of a predecessor project (PDF)
Attachment 2 – James M. Pachl’s letter dated May 34, 2007 commenting on the FEIR (PDF)

View the comment letter in PDF by clicking here.

Elk Grove’s Kammerer Road, Southeast Connector Not Crucial in National Transportation Analysis For Sacramento Region

By ElkGroveNews.net

May 11, 2016

A national transportation infrastructure needs report released today and touted by the Sacramento Transportation Authority (STA) did not include the Elk Grove City Council’s two most sought transportation projects – the Kammerer Road extension and the larger Southeast Connector.

See more at: http://www.elkgrovenews.net/2016/05/elk-groves-kammerer-road-southeast.html#sthash.IOrpThdD.dpuf

ECOS’ Comments on Kammerer Road Sphere of Influence in Elk Grove

April 7, 2016

These are the comments from ECOS regarding the NOTICE of PREPARATION of a DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT for the KAMMERER/HWY 99 SPHERE OF INFLUENCE AMENDMENT_(LAFC 07-15) APPLICATION.

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

Project Study Area

Background

We also attached a copy of our comments on the DEIR for the previous SOIA (LAFC #09-10) to further elaborate on our previous concerns, most of which we believe are still relevant.

Read that letter, dated November 18, 2011, by clicking here or on the image below.

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.

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.

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.