5PM City Council (Closed Session Begins @ 4:00 p.m.) [Updated 08/15/2022 @ 11:40 a.m.]
Meeting Time: 08-16-22 17:00
eComments Report
Meetings Meeting
Time
Agenda
Items
Comments Support Oppose Neutral
5PM City Council (Closed Session Begins
@ 4:00 p.m.) [Updated 08/15/2022 @
11:40 a.m.]
08-16-22
17:00
26 14 4 4 5
Sentiments for All Meetings
The following graphs display sentiments for comments that have location data. Only locations of users who have commented will be shown.
Overall Sentiment
5PM City Council (Closed Session Begins @ 4:00 p.m.) [Updated 08/15/2022 @ 11:40 a.m.] 08-16-22 17:00
Agenda Name Comments Support Oppose Neutral
10. Dutch Bros at Freeport Boulevard (P21-045) (Passed for Publication 08/09/2022; Noticed: 08/05/2022; Published: 08/12/2022) File ID: 2022- 01485
1 1 0 0
11. Quarterly Climate Update File ID: 2022-01441 10 3 2 4
12. City Council Workshop on Accelerating Carbon Neutrality File ID:
2022-01247
3 0 2 1
Sentiments for All Agenda Items
The following graphs display sentiments for comments that have location data. Only locations of users who have commented will be shown.
Overall Sentiment
Agenda Item: eComments for 10. Dutch Bros at Freeport Boulevard (P21-045) (Passed for Publication 08/09/2022; Noticed:
08/05/2022; Published: 08/12/2022) File ID: 2022-01485 Overall Sentiment
Taylor Kayatta
Location:
Submitted At: 1:04pm 08-12-22
I live just over the freeway in Greenhaven. I support this resolution. It will be nice to have a Dutch Bros close to my house. This type of business is consistent with the neighborhood (which already includes similar businesses) would be a nice amenity. The drive through will be off of the "Freeport freeway" so it will not change the character of that corridor. Dutch Bros will be a positive improvement to that new shopping center. Having this in the neighborhood rather than down at the Delta Shores mall where other similar businesses seem to be getting built will also keep residents close by instead of having to get on I-5 or drive across town.
Agenda Item: eComments for 11. Quarterly Climate Update File ID: 2022-01441 Overall Sentiment
Dale Steele
Location:
Submitted At: 9:24am 08-16-22
Sacramento has lost the momentum it had when it declared a climate emergency and adopted the recommendations of the Mayors' Commission on Climate Change. Now it is slow walking a climate action plan that is filled with soft commitments that aren't backed with staffing or funding. Meanwhile developer led efforts are pushing to continue sprawl and transportation impacts in a business as usual lack of vision. The public is very concerned about the impacts already felt from climate change with more coming. As a long time Sacramento Midtown resident I am very worried for my children and grandchildren and others that also live here. We must do more to protect their future.
There are great examples of what a city can do to tackle climate action. Portland recently unanimously approved the second funding round of its voter approved Clean Energy Benefits Fund that provides millions in clean energy grants and investments with a focus on being justice driven, community powered and accountable. That could be a vision for Sacramento with true leadership and commitment. Time to step up! Portland Clean Energy Community Benefits Fund (PCEF) https://www.portland.gov/bps/cleanenergy Council Approves Millions of Clean Energy Grant Funds https://www.southeastexaminer.com/2022/07/council- approves-millions-of-clean-energy-grant-funds/
Rosie Yacoub
Location:
Submitted At: 6:42am 08-16-22
The Mayor and City Manager promised a draft CAAP by July 1 but the city’s preliminary draft report is missing the adaptation section - the details on how we will protect our neighborhoods in the face of increasing climate impacts. And now according to the quarterly report, there is no exact date for the release of the draft CAAP . There have been unfilled vacancies, but there is also an unmet need for staffing. How will the City get this work done in a timely fashion without increasing its investment in people to do the work? An example of how this impacts GHG reductions is the delay of tree planting efforts because of staffing. And as we have all heard before, the best time to plant a tree was yesterday.
The report’s goals for increasing active transportation and transit use are lower than the Mayors’ Commission on Climate Change recommended and not ambitious enough. While we haven’t figured out how to get light rail to the airport, our region is now looking down the barrel of a developer-funded initiative that will increase vehicle miles traveled and induce sprawl. We need the City to work on creating more walkable, bikeable ways to get around all its neighborhoods and connect that with transit. Consider what can be done with existing construction and resurfacing projects to improve active transportation. Consider reducing speed limits to increase bicycle safety.
Identify matching funds that will enable the City to do the big transportation ideas.
Inga Olson
Location:
Submitted At: 10:06pm 08-15-22
I understand there will be and applaud the City for creating a 100% renewable energy plan. This and more consequential collaborative actions must be negotiated, funded and implemented regularly to address the scale of change occurring in our warming city and region. What about establishing a city-wide transportation authority and setting up small electric vans to pick up residents in neighborhoods--starting with the underserved--to bring people to main transit lines? What about the City Council and Mayor opposing the special interest Transportation Tax measure on the November ballot? This measure will unleash new levels of sprawl with most of the revenue going to roads, freeways and the SE Expressway. Bold stands, such as opposing this tax, are necessary to bring a vision of a resilient community into being. Plans that perpetuate or increase carbon in the atmosphere must be rejected! Successfully eliminating and naturally sequestering carbon will begin to reduce the pain and suffering that results from the increased warming, wildfires, the aridification of our landscape, and extreme flooding, including mega-floods.
There is a climate impact from most if not every action you/the city takes. Y ou must fill the 6 positions in the CAAP but that is not enough. The police and fire budgets are the largest in the city and they must identify the intersection with climate change and do something consequential about it. Every department must address climate implications. Beyond that, your leadership is necessary to build bridges with the federal and state government, other states, the business, education, health, NGO and other communities. Only in this way will adequate funding be found and expertise and creativity be unleashed to solve complex climate challenges. These type of solutions can make a real dent in speeding up the reduction in greenhouse gases released by the Sacramento region. These actions can also result in adaptation strategies, including green affordable longer-term shelters or housing, and others that help reduce illnesses such as asthma and reduce mortality rates caused or made worse by the changing climate.
The CAAP and emergency climate decisions will impact Sacramento and the region for the next 25 years. The stale 2045 deadline in State law and in your own documents must be replaced with 2030. Y our courage, openness to doing things differently, and your willingness to take a long view while acting with the utmost speed possible, in conjunction with other community leaders around the world, will determine our future.
Pat Ferris
Location:
Submitted At: 9:09pm 08-15-22
We need you on the City Council to act decisively to provide adequate funding and staffing to implement the recommendations of the Mayors' Commission on Climate Change and to spell out the Adaptation section of the CAAP , fulling funding appropriate to the climate emergency.
Bruce Pierini
Location:
Submitted At: 6:03pm 08-15-22
Please delay no longer the serious and sustained efforts to reduce greenhouse gasses and please fund adequately those efforts outlined but not programmed by the CAAP . This is the time to act and act decisevely, not to continue to talk about climate change and simplly wring our hands.
Specifically I ask you to identify funding so that the Adaptation in the CAAP is clearly spelled out and funded.
Tess Townsend
Location:
Submitted At: 4:13pm 08-15-22
We've had a big win nationally on climate with the Inflation Reduction Act. But we won't meet our climate goals without local action, and Sacramento is way behind. It's time for ACTION, not words. - Increase Y our Ambition. Take formal action NOW to commit to making climate action a PRIORITY with action that matches the scale of this crisis.
- Identify Funding. Act immediately to schedule a council agenda item to discuss & act on specific actionable funding proposals for climate action.
- Prevent Further Delay. Take immediate steps to provide sufficient resources so that the complete draft Climate Action Plan will not be further delayed and can be released no later than Sept 30, 2022. - Y ou only have to breath this week's awful air quality to feel the impacts of the climate crisis locally. It's going to get worse, not better, unless you take action NOW.
Deniece Ross-Francom
Location:
Submitted At: 3:16pm 08-15-22
Clearly we need to move forward with solid plans to mitigate the damage we've caused our planet and ensure our children and grandchildren will have livable conditions. I think it is important that;
1. that all ordinance language is focused on creating affordable pathways for homeowners to adopt new technology in their homes
2. that education is provided since many local homeowners are not aware of new technologies
3. that incentives be available to homeowners
Replacing gas stoves, water heaters, HVAC systems, etc with electric can be very expensive depending on the condition and age of the home
Paul Trudeau
Location:
Submitted At: 10:22pm 08-14-22
Dear Councilmembers and staff, the quarterly climate update notes a $3.2 billion gap to fully fund CAP actions by 2045 (and presumably more if we accelerate our climate activities, which I think will be necessary). Let me suggest we use a funding mechanism modeled after Seattle's JumpStart tax on just the very largest of the city's businesses, which in that city raised over $200 million in the first year of collection (2021). See https://www.cnbc.com/2020/07/07/seattle-passes-payroll-tax-targeting-amazon-and-other-big-businesses.html and https://www.cnbc.com/2020/07/07/seattle-passes-payroll-tax-targeting-amazon-and-other-big- businesses.html.
Brian Hausback
Location:
Submitted At: 8:15pm 08-14-22
Dear City of Sacramento Council, I am very strongly support acceleration of the Climate Action Plan asap! This is an issue that affects us all locally and globally! Please act now. We should be a leading city, not a following city!
Brian Hausback
Midtown home owner and Sac State Professor
Kate Wilkins
Location:
Submitted At: 6:25pm 08-14-22
On behalf of 350 Sacramento, please see the attached comment letter expressing our disappointment on the City's lack of urgency in implementing climate action. In the year 2022, 8 years from 2030, this city has not even had a serious discussion about potential long-term funding mechanisms that will be critical to implement projects to make this city more resilient to climate change, in addition to making this a better, safer place to live.
Agenda Item: eComments for 12. City Council Workshop on Accelerating Carbon Neutrality File ID: 2022-01247 Overall Sentiment
Mary Robinson
Location:
Submitted At: 4:55pm 08-14-22
Please make clear the City’s commitment to speedy climate action. As you know, the speed of climate change is quickly outpacing the measures that cities hope will reduce impacts on their residents. Sacramento declared a climate emergency in 2019 which aimed for carbon neutrality by 2030. City government needs to reaffirm this commitment and put planning into high gear.
Dawn Whitney
Location:
Submitted At: 3:23pm 08-14-22
The report dodges the city's 2030 carbon neutral goal. It uses opaque language such as "by 2030 as much as possible," only reachable "through collaboration with regional partners," and only with "appropriate financial and regulatory assistance." No doubt these caveats are real, but the lack of specificity and resolution memorialized in this report undermines any sense of urgency on the part the City of Sacramento.
Later is too late. Millions of people will be dead by 2045. Sacramento is not Tulsa, or Houston. If we can't lead, who will?
Judith Lamare
Location:
Submitted At: 6:11pm 08-12-22
Commenting for Trees for Sacramento, a citizen advocacy group. The Climate Action and Adaptability preliminary draft needs a much more aggressive and accountable canopy protection program. Please read our letter reviewing the draft and prior comments on the lack of Council oversight and commitment to tree canopy.
1 July 29, 2022 Climate Action and Adaptation Plan Preliminary Draft, Comments by Trees for Sacramento to the City of Sacramento Climate Action Team Trees for Sacramento represents citizen activists concerned about the loss of trees and tree canopy in the City as it accommodates population growth within the built area, and the ongoing lack of resources and Council commitment for growing the urban forest. The health of the City and its residents is vitally dependent on the extent and health of its urban forest. This Plan must be more proactive in addressing the weaknesses and failures of the City's urban forest management. In response, and to advise of future public hearings, please communicate via email to [email protected]; our postal address is 5601 Monalee Ave, Sacramento, CA 95819. Trees should play more than a cameo role in the CAAP. As the Plan states on p. 25, “Inventories measure GHG emissions in units of metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MT CO2e). One MT is equivalent to 2,205 pounds, roughly the same volume as a small two-story house and roughly the weight of a small sports car (Figure 2-1). The average car produces 5 MT of CO2e in 1 year. Alternatively, planting 17 new trees removes about 1 MT CO2e from the atmosphere over 10 years." Removing trees likewise adds MT CO2e, but this plan fails to account for ongoing loss of tree canopy, resulting increases in MT CO2e, and the City's lack of commitment to prevent canopy loss. The CAAP sets very ambitious canopy cover goals without adequate measures to achieve the goals. Perhaps the most important tool to meet the CAAP goals for canopy cover is not mentioned: protecting the existing canopy. The large trees that we have now grew to their current size by accessing soil that will not be available to the trees that replace them. The current tree canopy in many parts of the City has decreased and will continue to decrease without significant changes to the design standards and much more aggressive public tree planting, green space planning and tree care. The success of this effort depends on the strength and vitality of the City's Urban Forestry program. However, for reasons stated below and in attachments, success is unlikely without substantial reforms in how the City manages the urban forest and how it resolves conflicts between design standards and tree protection policies. The Role of Urban Forestry in the Climate Action and Adaptation Plan We have a fundamental disagreement with the Plan's unstated assumption that the canopy goals can be achieved absent a major reform of the way that the City does
2 Urban Forestry. We have elsewhere (see attachment) documented why we believe the City has lost at least a third of its tree canopy over the last 30 years despite lofty goals and policies to protect and plant trees. Given the key importance of tree canopy to the future health of the City and its residents, this function of municipal government must be elevated in the management structure of the City, and report regularly to the City Manager and the Council. At present, it is literally buried in the Public Works Department and its activities are not transparent and accountable to the public and Council. Urban Forestry should be removed from the Public Works Department and included in a new department committed to the implementation of the Climate Action and Adaptation Plan. We also believe that a Citizen Advisory Committee on the Urban Forest is a necessary prerequisite for the City to stay on track with canopy expansion goals and to protect the public interest in maintaining canopy trees. Reliance on Yet to Be Adopted Plans In general, the Climate Action Plan relies on other as yet un-adopted plans to demonstrate compliance, and fails to disclose what mandatory features of those plans will produce the necessary climate protections. Draft General Plan. The 2040 General Plan draft land use map is available and supports infill. However it can be changed before adoption, and lacks a key commitment to an urban limit line that would be an important underpinning for the Climate Action Plan. While the City takes actions to reduce GHG emissions, it must also protect against countervailing actions that would increase those emissions, such as permitting development outside the current City limit on agricultural land and ministerial approval of projects that will remove existing trees. We strongly recommend that the Climate Action Plan not simply reference the Business As Usual land use plan of the draft 2040 General Plan but require City to adhere to this land use plan, and include the existing city boundary as an urban limit line, as an implementation measure for Climate Action. It is essential that infill does not destroy current and future urban canopy coverage. Systemic change is needed across plans, ordinances, regulatory frameworks, and design standards; without this, infill will lead to an unlivable City without the shade canopy that is absolutely essential to the residents' health and the City’s future. Urban Forest Master Plan. The UFMP was promised to be completed by 2018. A draft has not been circulated. Yet the Climate Action Plan Preliminary Draft identifies the UFMP as the implementation measure to achieve the tree canopy increases required by the CAAP. We cannot review and comment on measures that are unknown. The Climate Action Plan should spell out measurable, enforceable actions. We have submitted comments to Urban Forestry on the UFMP which are attached and contain our recommendations.
3 The Climate Action Plan states on page 122 "Additional funding, land use regulations, and new incentive programs will be needed to reach these targets." Where in the CAAP are these measures described and committed to? The Plan acknowledges that "Tree planting on private property will need to double. New funding sources for urban forestry expansion and management are TBD, including but not limited to grants funding." Appendix D, CS1-1, describes funding need for only management of City trees ($6- 8 million) but lacks the detail and commitment to carry out the canopy expansion goals of the CAAP. Funding for management of existing city trees is now included in the City Budget, so why is additional funding for this purpose included in the plan but no fund estimate is provided for the canopy expansion called for in the Plan? Likewise on p. 53, "Funding and financing strategies are needed to help protect low-income and disadvantaged communities from increased tree maintenance costs.…” Where in the CAAP is the funding strategy for necessary maintenance for new trees in low income areas? Accountability and Enforceability? "As a qualified GHG reduction plan (explained in Chapter 1), Sacramento’s CAAP is required to specify performance standards for measures and actions, establish a mechanism to monitor the plan’s progress towards achieving its climate action targets, and include the requirement for amendment if the plan does not demonstrate achievement of its climate action targets. (p. 131) "[Chapter 8 details ] Sacramento’s approach to implementing and monitoring the CAAP to ensure actual GHG reductions are achieved in line with the City’s climate action targets and demonstrates alignment with the CAAP for CEQA streamlining of future development projects." (p. 132) We are concerned that the citywide plan to claim GHG reductions without project level CEQA review and mitigation will result in further reductions in livability and environmental quality of the City through reduction in tree canopy and permeable surface without equivalent expansion of tree canopy and green space. The Plan lacks the funding and resource capability to offset the canopy losses it will generate through CEQA streamlining in addition to canopy expansion. How does the plan account for unmitigated loss of canopy and permeable surface due to CEQA streamlining and other City policies allowing canopy trees to be removed? The City to date has failed to develop any accountability measures for Urban Forestry despite repeated citizen requests for annual reporting of tree removal permits granted, mitigation fees collected, and trees planted. Without reporting to the Council and public what tree resources have been removed and what tree resources have been added to the urban forest, how can the CAAP monitor compliance? There is no accountability for
4 the Tree Replacement Fund (fees for tree removal that are intended to plant trees to mitigate for impacts) and no way to determine if it is achieving its goal. The CAAP CS1-1 (Appendix D) lists " Continue to enforce zoning standards for shading in private parking lots to protect trees in existing parking lots" as a measure. This means that when a parking lot is built, it must show a plan for canopy coverage of 50 percent of the surface. Yet there is no evidence that there is any enforcement of these standards once the parking lot is completed. To meet the canopy goals, the City must adopt and enforce an aggressive parking lot maintenance of shade requirements ordinance with funding for real enforcement and real tree planting to achieve the standard. The City budget is not a guide to Urban Forestry's performance. The CAAP should be supported by a budget document that explains how in the City annual budget the canopy protection and expansion measures are funded, what past performance has achieved and what is to be achieved in the budget year. Without annual reporting and transparency, how can this effort be more than a paper plan without measureable results? Please see the attached March 2021 letter detailing our recent concerns about lack of accountability in the Urban Forestry program. Conflicts Between City Codes and Departments Threaten Canopy and "City of Trees" Reputation “Sacramento is well known as the City of Trees, with more than 19% of the city covered by tree canopy. These trees provide numerous benefits to Sacramento by cleaning the air, sequestering carbon, reducing water runoff, and keeping temperatures manageable during extreme heat events. By expanding the canopy, especially in neighborhoods with low tree coverage, the City can increase carbon sequestration, address climate injustice, and build resilience to a changing climate.” (p. 6) Our concern with the above description is that the CAAP fails to protect the maintenance of green space and tree canopy where it currently is performing all these functions, does not account for the removal of canopy and permeable surface, and falsely relies on new tree plantings in other areas to compensate for the losses. The City must account for anticipated losses in canopy and open ground (permeable surface) and compensate for those before it can claim that tree planting will expand canopy, "increase carbon sequestration, address climate injustice and build resilience to a changing climate." It must acknowledge that old canopy trees provide much greater canopy benefits than young trees. And that it takes many years for canopy to grow. We see two City policies that threaten the existing tree canopy. Missing Middle Housing Policy. The City should amend its Missing Middle Housing policy which allows MMH in residential R-1 neighborhoods that contain most of the city’s tree canopy because it is counterproductive to this strategy. It is a zero-sum
5 game to reduce tree canopy in some parts of the city (through building in spaces where trees and buildings cannot occupy the same limited space) and “growing” it in another. The City should seek to counter the effects of creating urban heat islands by avoiding “clustering” MMH on adjacent lots without an overall strategy for limiting tree loss (such as overlays and objective design standards). The problem inherent in objective design standards as a solution is that once a property owner has a right to build MMH, it will be difficult to impossible - even with objective design standards - to tell a property owner they cannot cut down a tree to build. The property owner can also request variances from design standards such as lot coverage and setbacks, which the city will likely grant, resulting in less green space. SB 8 (successor to SB 330) will not allow the city to put the density genie back in the bottle. (Reference: Measure E-5.2 -E-5.4, pp. 95-97.) How will the CAAP anticipate and mitigate losses to the tree canopy from City housing policies? Will the CAAP require new mitigations, limits to canopy removal by neighborhood, or planning tools such overlays? Ministerial Approval of Development Projects and Utility and State Exemptions from Tree Ordinance Preclude Proper Review of Tree Removals In 2016 when the tree protection ordinance was revised, we were assured that new development tree removal permits would be subject to public hearing review in the planning process. We were told that the new ordinance would give better protection for public trees. Now, however, Under Title 17, most projects are accorded a ministerial review and no public hearing is provided; developers then apply to Urban Forestry to obtain discretionary tree removal permits for their already approved project. By the time the tree removal permit is up for appeal, the project has been approved by the Planning Department. This process should be reversed, with tree removal permits required before the project is processed for ministerial review. Alternatively, the City should require discretionary review of projects that include significant tree removal, which would include any large canopy trees and any public trees. We are currently witnessing a ministerial project approval with 44 trees to be removed, including public trees and native oaks. All building design standards and ministerial processes need to include objective requirements for tree protection – both of current canopy trees and maintaining space for future canopy trees. Without this objective requirement, infill and other ministerial development processes will result in rampant deforestation of Sacramento. In the years since the 2016 tree protection ordinance was revised, we have witnessed the loss of many public street trees to make way for new buildings, including state buildings exempt from City regulation. We've witnessed clearcutting of canopy trees at public housing redevelopment sites. We've witnessed public utilities remove countless trees on public land under an exemption from local ordinance. Our experience tells us
6 that canopy loss since 2016 has been very significant and our local law and practice is not protecting the canopy that we have. Urban Form and Climate Action Planning We think the CAAP should take a more strategic approach to overall urban form and find a way to quantify, evaluate, monitor and expand greenspace and permeable surface as the City grows. The Plan also needs to find a way to address citywide drought management for the urban forest to be able to adapt to climate change. The Plan refers to the need for ways to help low income neighborhoods expand tree canopy, but offers no real solution. Here are some other areas in the Plan where the issue is touched on but in no way resolved. Groundwater Supply and Protection “These changes could lead to drought, groundwater depletion, increased wildfire risk, changes in streamflow, decreased drinking water supply and availability, and strain to health, energy, and infrastructure systems.” (P. 15). See also pp 16-17 "Streamflow declines and changes in precipitation patterns anticipated under continued global climate change will likely increase demand for groundwater. Groundwater currently comprises about one-third of the Sacramento region’s water use, and studies have shown that regional rates of groundwater extraction increase under drought conditions. While the City’s groundwater supplies are currently being managed sustainably, too much stress on the groundwater supply can lead to higher groundwater pumping costs, decreased streamflow, land surface subsidence, and loss of wetland ecosystems.” (p. 18) The Plan largely overlooks the benefit of green space for water conservation. Water runoff on hardscape, including storm water runoff, exacerbates groundwater depletion, as the water could be filtered by trees and green spaces into the aquifer. More density = more hardscape = less groundwater. It is essential that the city plan wisely, for drought protection and to avoid groundwater depletion. Street Tree Planters “MUNICIPAL MEASURE 6: Improve carbon sequestration potential of municipal parks, greenspace at City properties, and street tree planters in the public right-of-way” (p. 184-185. There is no discussion on using “street tree planters in the public right-of-way” to further climate action goals. How or who would implement this strategy? Water Related Emissions “Water-related emissions are generated by the electricity used to transport water for residential, commercial, and agricultural use, as well as emissions from wastewater treatment processes.” (p. 8)
7 Water runoff, including some storm water runoff in the City, goes into the sewers and ultimately to the river and carries pollutants. Water captured by the city’s storm drainage system and sewer system is subject to wastewater treatment processes. Trees and green spaces filter the water and allow it to drain into our aquifer rather than into drainage and treatment systems that use electricity to function. (https://www.cityofsacramento.org/utilities/drainage/stormwater/About-Us/Program-Information). The CAAP does not adequately credit trees and green space for avoidance of water-related emissions, and does not recognize how this avoidance can be increased in the future. It thus lacks adequate measures to protect such areas from loss of permeability. Urban Heat Islands “The effects of temperature increase are likely to be felt throughout Sacramento –especially in more densely developed areas with less green space – between May and October each year, with temperatures peaking in July and August. Therefore, these impacts are felt more acutely by under-resourced and lower income communities. Overall temperature increase can also lead to more frequent extreme heat days and heatwaves; the intensification of the urban heat island effect; greater heat-related illnesses such as heat stroke and heat exhaustion; and stress to infrastructure, as discussed below.” (p. 10) Won't cutting down trees, including private protected trees, to build ADUs, duplexes, triplexes and fourplexes create and expand urban heat islands - “holes” in the city’s rich, mature tree canopy? Creating a right to these permitted uses in R-1 zones of the city with no limit on the effects of “clustering” of structures will further exacerbate this effect. Areas of the city that are desirable for the foregoing types of development will suffer loss of tree canopy. How will the CAAP anticipate and mitigate losses to the canopy from City housing policies? Will the CAAP require new mitigations, limits to canopy removal by neighborhood, or planning tools such overlays? What policies and measures can protect city residents against expansion and creation of urban heat islands as the City grows? Climate Plan Should Account for City's Permanent Protection of Open Space and Agriculture The City has permanently protected from development thousands of acres of agricultural lands and open space through regulation of new development. The primary example is the Natomas Basin Habitat Conservation Plan. Though the protected lands are not in the City of Sacramento, the City should claim emission reductions from the permanent designation of these lands for habitat. We Support Mow Better. The CAAP should include Mow Better's goal is to eliminate the use of gas powered lawn equipment (leaf blowers, lawn mowers etc.) as climate actions. This includes:
8 1) The City of Sacramento should commit to converting its own lawn care tools as well as tools used in the City’s 17 Property and Business Improvement Districts (PBIDs) from gas-powered to clean electric- and people-powered tools and set an example for residents to follow. 2) The City of Sacramento should work to create a friendlier environment for clean modes of transit such as biking and walking through more robust enforcement of existing lawn care equipment restrictions, especially restrictions on times of use for gas-powered leaf blowers in residential areas (not permitted before 9 am or after 6 pm Mon-Sat or before 10 or after 4 on Sunday), and prohibitions on the use of any blowers on days when the AQI is above 100. 3) The City of Sacramento should incentivize more lawn removal to reduce water use and noise and air pollution caused by the use of lawn care equipment. Property owners should be able to receive incentives for any amount of lawn replacement, even just “mow strips”, to set an example for moving toward drought-tolerant landscaping. The City should devote more resources to publicizing this program. As part of this effort, we recommend also that: City specifications for designs for “complete streets” and other multi-modal transportation options must include planning, space and irrigation requirements for tree canopy coverage of these pedestrian and bike friendly transportation routes. Otherwise, the routes will be unusable during heat events. The City should incorporate canopy tree requirements in its lawn removal program. This should include requiring set-aside space for low-water need canopy trees and requirement that drip irrigation include dedicated stations for tree watering. Canopy trees can and should be preserved in xeriscapes wherever possible. Saving trees and setting aside space for trees in xeriscapes should be incentivized by additional awards. All training and information materials should emphasize the importance of saving existing canopy trees in yards and providing space for future canopy trees in new low-water landscapes. Inaccurate Photos in Plan Finally, we'd like to point out that the photos on pages 165, 308 and 410 do not accurately portray trees at those locations today. The photos thus give an impression about our urban forest that is misleading. Please pair these photos with current day photos to illustrate how tree loss is affecting our city. Please review our attachments for more detailed explanation of the comments made here.
Trees for Sacramento
[email protected]
March 11, 2021
Councilmember Angelique Ashby
City of Sacramento
915 I Street
Sacramento, CA 95814
Re 2016 Tree Ordinance Implementation, Problem Statement
Dear Councilmember Ashby:
You were there when the Sacramento Tree Ordinance was passed in August of 2016, and you were instrumental in ensuring that the public was heard and counted in the revisions to tree protections by the City. One of our key issues at that time was transparency and accountability in the tree removal and mitigation process. Trees4Sacramento has been troubled about the lack of full accountability and transparency in the Urban Forestry Program. This letter explains why and asks for your help. Publicly available reporting on the program is almost non-existent.
The Budget process reveals no useful information on the performance of the Program. Nor does the Urban Forestry website.
In particular we are concerned with lack of information about mitigation fees collected, and expenditures from the Tree Replacement fund to implement mitigation. Specifically, have any tree permit mitigation funds been diverted, borrowed or transferred to other city functions (other than tree replacement)? Note that the urgency of tree protection and preservation has only grown more important since the ordinance was passed. For example the 2020 Mayors' Climate Commission report reiterated the importance of trees in addressing the climate
2 crisis and the lack of equity in tree distribution and included a Tree Master Plan by 2021 as one of its top ten goals.
What Urban Forestry Does (from City web page)
"The Urban Forestry section of the Department of Public Works is charged with the care of our urban forest. Staff members in the Urban Forestry section, many being Certified Arborists and having decades of experience, do the following:
• Plant, maintain, prune and remove public trees
• Issue permits to prune, remove, or impact city and private protected trees • Review pre-development plans and landscape plans that involve city or private protected trees
• Create and maintain a list of preferred street trees
• Partner with external non-profit organizations to expand the urban forest and to educate citizens about the right tree in the right place and proper tree care"
Neither the website nor the Annual Budget disclose information about performance except annual trees pruned. Permits issued, permits denied, trees removed, trees planted, City trees removed and replaced, number of development projects seeking private and/or City street tree removals, total and detailed revenues and expenditures, contracts with external partners – none of this is reported to the public. The only information is a list of proposed permits for private tree removal, and a list of proposed city trees to be removed, lists which are public only for the period an appeal may be filed on that tree removal. Even this process is not completely transparent and lacks basic information. More than four years ago we requested that the tree species and diameter be listed on the tree removal web page. Urban Forestry responded that the web page design does not allow for additional text.
Is Funding Adequate?
The General Plan (ER 3.1.9) provides that:
"The City shall provide adequate funding to manage and maintain the city’s urban forest on City property, including tree planting, training, maintenance, removal, and replacement. (SO/FB) "
3 We see that many projects in the City have been rapidly eliminating or compromising City street trees and private protected trees. This ranges from State Buildings and private infill projects taking out large canopy trees to utilities like cable, 5G and water meter installation not only removing trees but affecting tree roots and space for future tree growth, effectively changing the potential tree canopy for the City. We are aware of significant removal of trees by PG&E, SMUD, ACE, and SAFCA that were exempted by the City from permitting process. We see no reporting on the adequacy of permit fees to offset the tree and canopy losses being sustained.
We are unable to track the expenditures from the Landscape and Lighting Revenues in the Urban Forestry Program. How are L&L revenues being expended for urban forestry services and has this changed from past practice? No information is provided in the Annual Budget that would help to determine whether funding provided is adequate. We have no information on the revenues (and sources of revenues), and program expenditures, nor comparisons with earlier years.
We note that Tree Replacement Fund dropped from $215,000 in 2015/16 to a budgeted 120,000 in this fiscal year and thereafter in the five year cycle (p. 86, 2020/21 budget). But was budgeted at $703,000 through 2/2020. This indicates that the tree replacement expenditures for mitigation are not keeping pace with the tree removal impacts. How does Urban Forestry keep track of its mitigation obligations and assure that they have been discharged in a reasonable period of time?
On p. 417 of the 2021/2022 Annual Budget, the Public Works Department was authorized to adjust the revenue budget (15001811) and the expenditure budget in the Tree Planting and Replacement (R15188500) project based on actual revenues received in the Tree Planting and Replacement Fund (Fund 2035). This indicates that the budget document is not a reliable source of information about either tree replacement revenues or tree replacement expenditures. This pattern of budget reporting for tree permit fees goes back several years and fails to disclose to the public what actually is happening with revenues and expenditures in this permit program. The instruction to adjust the budget suggests that accumulated funds may be diverted to another program without Council review.
4 No Report Back to Council on 2016 Ordinance Update Implementation On Aug 3, 2016, City Council adopted an updated tree ordinance for managing and protecting the urban forest. (Ordinance Amending Sections 2.62.030 and
8.04.100, Deleting and Adding Chapter 12.56, and Deleting Chapters 12.60 and
12.64 of the Sacramento City Code Relating to Trees (Passed for Publication 07/19/2016; Published 07/22/2016) Report # 2016-00705
When this Ordinance was being considered Trees4Sacramento requested that an annual report be prepared, made public and a Council hearing held to review the performance of the new Ordinance and the Urban Forestry Program. This has never happened.
The approval of this Ordinance included direction to staff that "an annual report, or an as-needed report, for council discussion re the status of the ordinance with statistics and data." The Public Works Department has never presented such a report for Council discussion.
No Annual Report as Promised in Settlement with Tree Advocates Sacramento On October 25, 2017 the City signed a Settlement with Tree Advocates Sacramento (not affiliated with Trees for Sacramento), providing in part that the City would prepare an Annual Report for the public on the status of Sacramento's urban forest. No report has been published to date. Other elements of that Settlement Agreement are also pending.
No Urban Forest Master Plan as promised.
In 2017, the City initiated the Urban Forest Master Plan process as promised in the 2016 adoption of the new Tree Ordinance. The promise was that the UFMP would go to Council within 18 months of the August, 2016 adoption of the ordinance. The expected release of the report in 2019 did not happen. Completing a Tree Masterplan was one of ten Mayors’ Climate Commission goals that Council committed to completing in 2021. A draft was promised for early 2021. That draft has not been made public as of this date. Again, the transparency and accountability of the urban forestry program has been sacrificed, along with public confidence.
5 What About Trees in City Parks?
During the adoption process for the 2016 Ordinance Update, we were assured that more trees would be protected in the City because all City owned trees would come under protection. We have seen no report back to demonstrate that in fact, our City Parks trees are now protected from removal. The use of McKinley Park for a sewer vault is one example of lack of protection for trees in City parks. It is unclear to us who manages trees in City Parks and how the City provides more protection now than it did in 2015 and prior years. There seems to be no publicly accessible accounting for maintenance and replacement for City Park trees.
No Data on Parking Lot Shade Ordinance Enforcement
The parking lot tree shading ordinance (1983) requires that all new parking lots include tree plantings designed to result in 50 percent shading of parking lot surface areas within 15 years. In 2001, E. Gregory MacPherson, Ph.D. (USDA Forest Service) published a study finding that Sacramento parking lots were woefully short on achieving the 50 percent shade requirement. ( "Sacramento’s parking lot shading ordinance: environmental and economic costs of compliance," Landscape and Urban Planning 57 (2001) 105–123 )
The City of Sacramento Parking Lot Tree Shading Design and Maintenance Guidelines were adopted by the City in 2003 in an attempt to improve performance of the parking lot shade ordinance. We are aware that Urban Forestry staff prepared further guidance that was not implemented and suspect that there has been backpedaling on this important canopy and shade regulation issue.
We continue to ask that the City allocate funds and apply for grant funding as well to initiate a Parking Lot Shade Ordinance enforcement program to improve canopy coverage in the City. This is an area where adequate funding as called for in the General Plan is lacking and there is no evidence of enforcement despite a 20 year old evaluation that the ordinance is not achieving its goals.
6 Request for Information, Transparency and Regular Evaluation of the Urban Forestry Program
We hope that you will assist us in getting release of the detailed data on revenues, expenditures, permits, tree removals, and tree plantings by fiscal year since 2014.
The public is entitled to these data to monitor City performance in urban forestry.
We ask that the City Council direct Urban Forestry and the Department of Public Works to prepare a report back to the Council by December 31, 2021 on the implementation of the 2016 Tree Ordinance Update and the performance of Urban Forestry programs in each fiscal year and cumulatively. The report should include performance indicators on the status of the City's Urban Forest. We request that performance indicators be included in the annual budget report.
We look forward to your advice and counsel on these issues, and to working with you this year to improve the accountability of the Urban Forestry Program. Please contact us via email at [email protected].
Thank you for your attention and concern.
Kate Riley Jude Lamare
Karen Jacques Gretchen Steinberg
Dan Pskowski Jim Pachl
M. N. Kelly
August 13, 2022
Re: Aug 16 Council Meeting Agenda Item 11 &12 – Climate Update & Workshop
Dear Mayor Steinberg and City Council,
350 Sacramento has been advocating for the City of Sacramento to act boldly on climate since the Mayors’ Commission on Climate Change recommendations were enthusiastically adopted by Council in 2020. Since then, we have been extremely disappointed by the lack of progress the city is making on climate.
There have been plenty of words from the council about how important climate action is, but the can has been continually kicked down the road as we await workshop after workshop, draft plan after draft plan. Given the inadequacy of the incomplete preliminary draft CAP published in July, we expect this process will drag well into next year. The city continues to miss crucial opportunities to invest in programs and infrastructure now, and the price of dealing with the consequences of our local inaction continues to rise.
We again urge you to start prioritizing climate action and to take the following actions:
Act now to schedule a council agenda item to discuss and act on specific actionable funding proposals for climate action.
The vague list of ‘potential funding strategies’ in the draft CAP is unacceptable as a road map for funding the next 25 years of climate action. We need actual funding proposals.
When will this be discussed? How much potential revenue and matching grant funds will the City continue to miss out on by not prioritizing this conversation?
Take immediate steps to provide sufficient resources so that the complete draft Climate Action Plan will not be further delayed and can be released no later than September 30, 2022.
The Mayor and City Manager promised the draft CAP would be released July 1, 2022. This promise was not fulfilled. Instead, an incomplete draft was released that did not have the critical Adaptation section, which would detail how we will protect our neighborhoods in the face of increasing climate impacts. The full draft CAP must be released, as promised.
This report is now almost two years late.
Take formal action on August 16 that states a commitment to making climate action a PRIORITY and taking action that matches the scale of the climate emergency.
Consider for a first action, committing to providing the staff resources to complete the plan.
Expedite hiring to fill vacancies, use other existing vacancies within the city, temporarily use staff from other departments, and use other available options.. There is not enough capacity to complete the projects the city purports to support. Even projects that have been fully funded through last year’s mid-year $4.4 million dollars, like tree planting, have not started because of staffing challenges. City staff are choosing between implementing projects and working on planning documents that guide decades of city action. The consultant appendix to the draft CAP even states that the city will need at least six new staff to pull off the measures. The City ignored pleas to allocate funding for new staff at this year’s budget discussions. Filling empty positions will help, but it is not enough.
You say you care about climate action, but your actions so far speak otherwise. The continued failure to allocate the necessary staff and funding is a loud and clear message.
We are eager for Sacramento to be a climate leader, and we can be once the Council steps up. There are so many organizations and community members ready to support and help you.
Thank you,
350 Sacramento