10,000 homes – and lots of shopping – planned for new neighborhood near Sacramento airport, by Tony Bizjak, Mar 1, 2019, The Sacramento Bee

The project…would be built in an environmentally sensitive and floodable area of Natomas, and already is the subject of numerous concerns.

…environmentalists argue that such a large development means paving prime wildlife habitat and farmland. The project, they say, could undermine existing habitat conservation agreements that limit the amount of acreage to be developed in the Natomas basin.

The site also is outside of the county’s existing urban development boundary. In order to allow development, county officials would have to amend the county’s growth plan and extend the boundary west toward the river.

Click here to read the full article.

Click here to read the Environmental Council of Sacramento’s formal comments on this proposal.

Judge rejects San Diego County’s climate action plan

By Richard Allyn, Reporter

Posted: Dec 28, 2018 9:40 PM PST
Updated: Dec 28, 2018 10:53 PM PST

CBS 8 San Diego

SAN DIEGO (NEWS 8) – Environmental activists are calling on San Diego County leaders to adopt a new climate action plan.

For the third time, a judge Friday rejected San Diego County’s plan, saying it doesn’t comply with goals for reduced emissions. It was a ruling that environmental leaders praised and they used the moment to urge the County Board of Supervisors to create a comprehensive climate action plan.

The new court ruling found that San Diego County’s climate action plan fails to comply with its own and the state’s goals of cutting back on carbon emissions. The judge rejected the county’s proposal to use carbon credits from out of the county or out of the country, saying that offsetting greenhouse gas emissions in other parts of the world does nothing to help us here at home.

Click here for the full story.

Elk Grove General Plan

On September 26, 2018, the Environmental Council of Sacramento submitted a comment letter on the Elk Grove General Plan.

Summary

Following ECOS and Habitat 2020s’ opposition to the recently adopted Kamerrer-99 Sphere of Influence Expansion, ECOS and Habitat 2020 are primarily concerned with the “study areas” for further expansion proposed in this General Plan Update. Elk Grove’s anticipated growth can be accommodated within the existing City limits, and we find no justification for expansion beyond the Sacramento County Urban Services Boundary (USB) established in 1993 to be the ultimate growth boundary within the County. The proposal is inconsistent with the Sacramento Area Council of Governments’ (SACOG) Metropolitan Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (MTP/SCS) for meeting State mandated greenhouse gas (GHG) reductions, Federal mandates for Air Quality Attainment under the State Improvement Plan (SIP), as well as myriad regional goals for social equity, public health and natural resource conservation. There is an extreme lack of certainty that municipal water can be provided to this area without severe regional impacts, and the impacts to invaluable agricultural and biological resources by the proposal are potentially impossible to mitigate.

The justification given for study of further expansion is the need for Elk Grove to correct its job’s housing balance. This is a goal that ECOS agrees with, but, again, the housing and employment that Elk Grove anticipates to achieve from existing planning areas within the current City boundaries already far exceed that of SACOG’S projections for Elk Grove by 2040. If Elk Grove were to achieve these housing and employment projections in the SOIA as well, it would certainly have impacts on housing and employment in neighboring jurisdictions in the region.

While these proposed expansion areas are only “study areas,” it is irresponsible of the City to signal intent for growth that is so divergent from the regional plan, and where the cumulative impacts to the region would be so great.

Click here to read the full letter in PDF.

Hidden money, weaponized disinformation and a dark development

By Scott Thomas Anderson

July 19, 2018

Sacramento News and Review

Who’s behind the leading phone survey and sponsored Facebook campaign that are trying to assuage Folsom residents about a massive attack on open space?

Folsom Ranch, an embattled series of housing developments, is on track to be the largest of its kind in Sacramento County in decades—which means an enormous loss of open space, agricultural land and wildlife habitat.

I scanned the room for reactions and paused at former Mayor Bob Holderness. After leaving his elected post, Holderness became a consultant for prominent developers and then spearheaded the campaign for Measure W, the 2004 ballot initiative for the city to annex the land on its southern border, which would be taken over by Folsom Ranch. Today, Holderness represents Westland Capital Partners, a major developer of Folsom Ranch, as well as AKT Development, a major seller of its land.

His jump from elected leader to special-interest contractor was mirrored by former City Manager Martha Lofgren, who helped prepare the South of 50 project on the taxpayers’ dime until 2006, and is now serving as legal counsel for the New Home Company, one of the project’s main developers. But wait, there’s a three-peat! Former city planner Mike McDougall is now a top-ranking manager for Folsom Ranch.

Similar to The Folsom Way’s story-weaving in The Bee—and the meditative voice-over work on its sky-soaring Facebook video—Holderness discusses the South of 50 project as if it was approved by locals when they passed Measure W. But that vote for the city to take control of the rolling land’s future, instead of leaving that up to the county, nowhere mentioned 11,000 homes and suburban sprawl. In fact, the measure specifically forbade housing without a new, secured water supply, which remains in doubt.

Did Holderness know who was behind The Folsom Way? Before I could think more about it, he stood up and decided to jump into the kerfuffle unfolding in the chambers. Holderness strolled over to the podium. “I’m frankly disappointed to see that two of our planning commissioners don’t have a good understanding of what their role is in our city government,” he said. “Perhaps they didn’t understand their assignment, and that’s unfortunate.”

Commissioner Mallory, who’d just finished arguing that consultants have too much power in the city, glanced wearily up and replied, “You, sir, are one of the consultants.”


Photo by Devon McMindes

Click here to read the full article.

They are building 11,000 new homes in Folsom. But will there be enough water?

By Ryan Sabalow, Dale Kasler and Tony Bizjak

Updated June 18, 2018

The Sacramento Bee

It’s like a new city springing to life: 11,000 homes and apartments, seven public schools, a pair of fire stations, a police station, a slew of office and commercial buildings and 1,000 acres of parks, trails and other open space. Expected population: 25,000.

But will it have enough water?

As construction begins this month on the first model homes at Folsom Ranch, a 3,300-acre development in the city of Folsom south of Highway 50, state regulators continue to have questions about the project’s water supply. They still aren’t convinced the city has secured enough water to keep showers and spigots flowing as California contends with increasing uncertainty about rain and snowfall.

. . .

The drought, which officially ended last year, seems to have done little to impede development. No cities or counties appear to have curbed their development plans as a direct result of water-supply limitations,

. . . 

Alan Wade, former president of the Save the American River Association, said it’s baffling state water officials would tell Folsom they had doubts about its water supply yet would let the development proceed.

“The reply from Folsom essentially told them to go pound sand: ‘We’re going to go ahead anyway,'” Wade said. “I don’t know how you can get away with that.”

Caltrans ready to expand Yolo Causeway, seeks public’s input

By Max Resnick

June 06, 2018

The Sacramento Bee 

Caltrans will begin the process of seeking public input on a proposal to improve traffic congestion on Interstate 80 between Solano and Sacramento counties.

The state’s transportation department wants to extend an existing carpool lane at the edge of Solano County through Yolo County and into Sacramento County

. . . 

The Environmental Council of Sacramento, a nonprofit whose mission, according to its website, is “to achieve regional and community sustainability and a healthy environment for existing and future residents,” opposes the idea.

The council believes it will actually worsen the traffic situation along the stretch of highway.

. . . 

“I like the idea of the bike path,” said Diane Swann, member of Bike Davis. “I don’t care about another HOV lane. I think that you widen the road, you get more cars.”

. . . 

Among the topics that could be discussed is whether to turn the lane into a toll lane.

Click here to read the full article.


To learn more about some of the problems caused by widening freeways, please read about our recent lawsuit against Caltrans for their plans to widen Highway 50 with High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes by clicking here