Category Archives: Essays

Features and essays

Tips For Responding to the Draft Environmental Impact Report for McKinley Village

Our friends at Neighbors United for Smart Growth developed this excellent information article. There’s great information in here about responding to the McKinley Village Draft Environmental Report.

NEXT STEPS FOR MCKINLEY VILLAGE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT

What to look for in the report and how to determine a response

The City of Sacramento as the lead agency for complying with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) has issued a Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the McKinley Village project. The City has issued this DEIR with a 45-day comment period from Nov. 12 and ending Dec. 27, 2013. The City will not be  holding a public hearing to accept comments

The community is encouraged to review and comment on the DEIR.  Comments should be submitted in writing to:

Dana Allen, Associate Planner
City of Sacramento, Community Development Department
300 Richards Blvd., 3rd Floor
Sacramento, California 95811
dallen@cityofsacramento.org

WHAT TO LOOK FOR

The DEIR is required to evaluate potential significant environmental effects of the proposed project and present alternatives to the proposed project where there are potential significant impacts. These impacts are determined through comparing the existing conditions at the project site and region to expected construction activities and post-project conditions; this change in the environment is then compared to the City’s standards set as thresholds of significance to determine whether the impact is considered “significant” and thereby triggering the need to present feasible mitigation measures that would to avoid or substantially reduce the potential significant impacts of the proposed project.

Reviewers should focus their attention on several important aspects of the DEIR, related to the following questions:

Project description

  • Have the project objectives been cleared described?
  • Are the project objectives supported by information contained in the DEIR or otherwise referenced within the City’s administrative record?
  • Is the project adequately described, including all future phases?
  • Does the project description include presentation of all necessary facilities to support the reasonably foreseeable activities that are expected to occur on the project?
  • Have all potential permits and other regulatory authorizations been clearly identified?

Environmental setting

  • Has the current physical environment for all resources potentially affected by the proposed project been clearly described for project site and regional vicinity?
  • Is there sufficient information to understand the physical environment as it exists at the time the Notice of Preparation (NOP) was issued?
  • Is there additional information necessary for the decision-maker to perform an adequate impact analysis when it would be inappropriate to use “current physical environment” as the baseline?
  • If surveys were prepared what is the timing of the surveys?
  • Were appropriate protocols used by experts to perform these surveys?
  • If survey information was submitted by the project proponent, has the City performed an independent analysis of that information?

Impact analysis

  • Has the baseline for determining impacts for each environmental resource been adequately described?
  • Has the threshold of significance for each resource’s impact analysis been adequately presented and substantiated?
  • Has there been an adequate analysis of both direct (caused during construction) and indirect impacts (caused later in time) of the proposed project (including all future phases and reasonably foreseeable facilities necessary to support the proposed project)?
  • Has there been an appropriate presentation of the potential for significance when comparing all resource impacts (direct and indirect) to the various thresholds of significance?
  • Has there been an adequate presentation of cumulative impacts (including determination of significance), including presentation of past, present and reasonably foreseeable probable future projects that would in combination with impacts of the proposed project cause a cumulative impact?

Mitigation measures

  • Have mitigation measures and alternatives been presented for all potentially significant impacts (including potentially significant cumulative impacts)?
  • Was there adequate detail presented in the mitigation measure so the City is not deferring any collection of information or decision making to a future process?
  • If certain mitigation measures are deemed infeasible, including economic infeasibility, does the DEIR present sufficient information to support that conclusion?
  • If this information was submitted by the project proponent, including economic infeasibility, has the City performed an independent analysis of that information?

Alternatives

  • Was there an adequate range of alternatives considered for the project, including discussion of all alternatives presented on the record, including those submitted during scoping?
  • For those alternatives considered but not included for detailed evaluation, was there adequate justification presented in the DEIR or otherwise including in the City’s administrative record as to why they were not analyzed in detail?
  • Was there an adequate range of alternatives analyzed in detail in the DEIR that are potentially feasible, would meet most of the project objectives and would avoid or otherwise minimize at least one potentially significant impact of the proposed project?
  • If certain alternatives are ultimately deemed infeasible, including economic infeasibility, does the DEIR present sufficient information to support that conclusion?
  • If this information was submitted by the project proponent, including economic infeasibility, has the City performed an independent analysis of that information?

Other concerns

  • For all information submitted by or paid for by the project proponent, has the City performed an independent analysis of that information to determine whether it is sufficient for use in the DEIR?
  • Has the City made a good faith effort at full disclosure?
  • If the City has incorporated information by reference or otherwise used references in the DEIR, have those references been adequately cited and summarized?Does the City have all of those references available for review during the DEIR comment period?

NEXT STEPS

After the City closes the comment period for the DEIR it will assess whether information was submitted that would require revisions to the DEIR that would necessitate recirculation of changes made to the DEIR with an additional comment period. If the City determines this is not necessary, it will prepare responses to comments received on the DEIR and prepare a Final EIR that is required to include: the DEIR; a list of commenters and all comments received on the DEIR; responses to all significant points raised in the comments received on the DEIR; and revisions to the DEIR necessitated by the comments received, as well as changes to the project or other information.

If the City does not recirculate the DEIR, CEQA does not require an additional review period for the Final EIR. However, the City is required to circulate its responses to public agency comments 10 days prior to certifying the Final EIR as meeting the requirements of CEQA.

After the City has prepared the Final EIR, the City Planning and Design Commission will hold a public meeting to consider recommending that the City Council certify the Final EIR (certifying whether it meets the requirements of CEQA) and to consider recommending that the City Council approve the project. The City Council will then hold a public meeting to consider certification of the EIR and whether to approve the project.

Posted in Essays | 4 Comments

East Sacramento Strange Bedfellows

Strange Bedfellows

A neighborhood acquaintance possesses political views, which are the polar opposite of my own. What we have in common is that we still read books on paper and walk to the polls to vote. When I see her on election days I wait till she has voted, then go into the booth to cancel her error. Is this useful, mature or in any way valuable behavior? No, but during some elections it’s been my single pleasure.

Quite a while ago she told me that development was planned for the Centrage area, one that would break our levee and invade our shady streets with thousands more cars. She said with a smirk that Phil Angelides was the developer. “You’re kidding,” I said. I’d voted for Angelides for Governor. I’d brought friends who were for Steve Westly to hear Angelides speak and they too switched to his side. I’d shaken hands with him at Burr’s and said, good luck. He was one of the good guys, white hat and all. It was hard to believe he would plunk a dense chunk of overbuilt suburbia and a  cathedral in our midst.

Then came the toppling of the economy. The development stopped. People lost jobs, lost homes. The poorest were hit the hardest, of course, but almost everybody felt the pain. In East Sacramento people stopped talking about Centrage 2. Now we talked about sicko mortgages and foreclosures and the bleak economic future.

A national Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission was appointed. This would be like the famous Pecora Commission which investigated the causes of the Great Depression. The Chairman of the new Pecora Commission? Phil Angelides. Back in his white hat, he summoned experts and culprits alike to hearings and in the end published the famous conclusion: the crisis was avoidable. It was caused by, among other things, lack of financial regulation, lack of transparency, “a systematic breakdown in accountability and ethics.” It was widely lauded and made the New York Times best-seller list. I didn’t read the whole report because phrases like “OTC derivatives and credit default swaps fueled the mortgage securitization pipeline” give me paralyzing neural spasms (tiny strokes caused by excessive technical language). But I did read explanations and analysis of the report, and thought Angelides had done a remarkably credible job. Later I also read his Washington Post comment criticizing Paul Ryan for blaming the collapse not on Wall Street and the invasion of Iraq but on the food stamp program. “How do you revise the historical narrative…?” Angelides asked. “You and your political allies just do it. And you bet on the old axiom that a lie is halfway around the world before the truth can tie its shoes.”

Locally things finally began to get better, at least for the luckier sort. The housing market improved. Unemployment slowly, slowly inched down. But the bad project returned—now it was Centrage 3, this time without the cathedral. But it would be 328 houses with two-car garages crammed into the same place. Now they were insistently calling it McKinley Village to associate it with the lovely old growth park neighborhood it would violate. They were again going to blast holes in our secondary levee so they could funnel 3, 500 cars daily into our streets. Flood dangers? No worries, they’d put in floodgates, they said, sounding as confident as that raving stock market guy on TV who’d predicted that nothing really bad could happen to the economy. McKinley Village would nestle snugly between railroad routes and a freeway that extruded diesel and auto exhaust upon its residents. The solution? Hepa filters in every house. Not unlike the big banks’ internal monitoring system. But what about kids who want to play outside in the diesel and auto exhaust? Simple. The development would plant two thousand trees to absorb the air poisons. But two thousand scarecrow baby trees with trunks like twigs and arms like sticks take many years to grow and even then they can’t absorb all the contaminants. Would the developer perhaps pay for the inhalers and asthma treatments the frolicking children would require? No, because the fault would lie with the parents who purchased the modern amenity houses with the modern amenity filters and modern muck in the air. Would there at least be retail to keep villagers home for shopping? Yes, there would be room for a store in the recreation center. Kind of like having a soda machine in the lobby. And how about these requirements for good infill: public transportation or a shuttle to bus lines? No. Not “economically feasible,” said the developer. So, no real retail, befouled air, holes in the levee, manually operated floodgates, and aggressive traffic invasion of nearby neighborhoods. And they would call this toxic thing with its cannibalized name ‘smart growth.’ A lie is halfway around the world before the truth can tie its shoes.

“I can’t believe he would do this after that Commission,” someone said. Where was the Angiledes who had delivered the noble reprimand to Wall Street? Well. He was visiting members of the Sacramento Planning Commission and showing them his car-centric design plan. Later he would speak at length before the Commission at a public hearing. He represented his little village as ideal infill, fully integrated with adjacent park neighborhoods. He didn’t say that the holes he would blow through the levee would hugely escalate our traffic burden, escalate our exhaust pollution, escalate our pedestrian hazards and ultimately cause home values to plummet because nobody wants to live on bumper-to-bumper thoroughfares.

When Midtowners and East Sacramentans who attended the hearing rose to protest this invasive, un-neighborly prospect, they were given two minutes apiece to speak. If they went a few seconds too long a little bell was rung to silence them. Of course we understand that we can’t have uncontrolled public access to the microphone because some of the citizenry will, like officials, become intoxicated by the amplification and babble incessantly, oblivious to the suffering of listeners. But really, two minutes? How about one full hour to present our best arguments? That’s what Angelides got. Moreover, it’s a safe bet that nobody rang a little bell on him when he visited each Planning Commission member privately.

I ran into my political opposite at Corti Brothers. She said she might move because she lived near ground zero where the frankenstorm of traffic would hit. She might make her home a rental. “Everything will turn into rentals there,” she said. “It’ll completely change the area. Your candidate. How could he do this?”

So I asked if she had now become a regulator and abandoned her free market notion that profit justified everything.

She did not address this admittedly snide charge, but said instead, “This whole thing is caused by that infill idea.”

But anything in that space, including a leaking nuclear reactor, would be infill. It’s the kind of infill that matters. And McKinley village infill is destructive. It’s outspill.

So I said this and for once we agreed. She said she was amazed. I’m amazed too. Add embarrassment to the amazement. She said she would attend the Planning Commission hearing but I didn’t see her there. However we spoke this morning and she made a donation to our neighborhood group. So now, after all these years and all these elections, we’re allies. She’s red, I’m blue; she thinks the country, state and city should be run like a business, I think they should be run like a service; she distrusts big government, I distrust big conglomerate government and the Koch brothers; she hates welfare, I hate corporate welfare; she likes the Tea Party; I like beer. It goes on and on, and endless litany of disagreements–from sea to shining sea. But when we come to Mc Kinley Village ancient antagonisms are, by unspoken agreement, submerged. She wonders why people can’t think long term and protect these old neighborhoods and insists that they are ultimately more valuable to the city than the McKinley Village tax base. “Exactly,” I say. She says it’s a shame. It brings ruin. It’s shortsighted. “Exactly,” I say. And it occurs that Angelides has done what no politician in this whole fractured country has been able to do—bring us together.

Pat Lynch

 

 

 

Posted in Essays, Uncategorized | 1 Comment