I am a volunteer with Trees for Sacramento; the tree canopy coverage goals in the GP are inadequate? Sacramento could support a tree canopy of 45.4%. Is a canopy 10 percentage points lower than our potential what Sacramentans want? We think not. We believe the goal in 2030 should be 35% and in 2045 should be 45%. Austin, Texas has a current tree canopy that is higher that Sacramento's 2045 goal. This is not acceptable for the City of Trees. Please increase those goals
There are few things in civic life that qualify as win-win-win propositions, but a comprehensive, systems-level approach to Safe Routes to School (SRS) programing is one of the few. First and foremost, strong SRS is needed to protect our city’s most precious resource – our children and youth. According to the city’s Vision Zero School Safety Study, Sacramento has the highest number of speed related traffic fatalities and the most collisions resulting in fatalities or serious injuries involving pedestrians under the age of 15 of any Californian city. Second, providing safe ways for kids to walk, bike, and roll to school also offers measurable health and academic benefits, as well as benefits to the larger community, such as improved traffic congestion, cleaner air, and safer roads and sidewalks. Third, SRS addresses historical infrastructure inequities and, thereby, promotes environmental justice.
I thus stand with many fellow Sacramento citizens in encouraging the City of Sacramento to prioritize SRS programming in the city’s General Plan 2040. Thank you.
We are fast approaching the tipping point where there will be no return. Your CAAP is too little and too late. There's widespread crop failures, it is uninhabitable to live in many parts of the world, and this is the plan will do nothing. We're facing a nightmarish future and soon and this plan will do nothing to stop the hurricanes, flooding, droughts, excess heat, excess carbon, and the deaths of all species of life on the planet. You have a responsibility to take action to stop the carbon. This plan will not save us. I am very sad for my adult children and all the people who are going to be alive to see mass starvation and wars.
I support safe streets and safe routes. You can't believe in climate change issues without providing safe, clean streets for everyone. This also include clearing storm drains and rivers from filth and needles that are toxic to all living things. Keep our tree canopy and increase it. Consider the mental health impacts to "stack and pack" housing with no outdoor spaces or parking for safe streets. Children need safe places to play and people need fresh air and space to take a break from time to time. We are a city of abundance, not scarcity. Please relfect that in how our city operates.
I am writing this response regarding the CAAP plan because it is missing substantial and enforceable language needed to promote and enable Active Transit (AT) as a real replacement for what feels like a very car dependent city. If the point of the CAAP is to form a response to climate change and enforce policies to create a net 0 emission Sacramento, then money is being put toward the wrong goals.
The CAAP is focusing on converting Sacramento to an EV city. Restrictions on gas stations unless they incorporate EV chargers, is a fine goal, but it focuses on the wrong problem, it sees the existence of gas-powered cars as the problem, rather than recognizing our dependence on them. The way Sacramento is built there has been endless infrastructure focused on making it easier to drive somewhere, wider streets, endless parking lots. The amount of space given to cars means business are farther apart, homes are far from businesses. when I want to buy a soda I cannot walk to the store, I must get into my car, and it is unnecessary.
I don't understand how the CAAP sees electric cars as the solution. I don't hate electric cars, but they should be the option when you truly need a car, and we should focus on making a world where we don't need a car for every little errand. However, EV's are heavy and expensive: The average EV is roughly 36% heavier than its non-EV counterpart, and between 42% and 139% more expensive depending on if someone is replacing a truck or a sedan.
Using the Power of 4 rule first established in road tests in the 50's, and shown since to be a very conservative multiplier, this increase in weight will result in a 144% increase in road wear per vehicle swapped to EV: The result of a 1 to 1 replacement of gas vehicles for EVs sees roughly 2.44 times as much road wear for every vehicle on the road, meaning a road with an expected life of 25 years with 10 year re-sealing and maintenance will now last 10.24 years and need resealing every 4. In a city where the current project list is 100 times greater than the project funding, it makes no sense to enforce a narrative expediting the wear and tear of infrastructure.
Add strong language that will create more protected bike lanes, remove barriers to entry for mixed use, make the bus and light rail dependable means of transit, including on weekends and evenings. if these services and options feel like the more comfortable way, the faster way to get to where we need to go, they are certainly less expensive for the city far less expensive on the individual, and they are far better for the environment.
Please keep our streets safe for children to walk to school within the Climate Action and Adaptation Plan. This also means keeping the streets free of trash, needles, and human waste.
I support the Safe Routes to School within the Climate Action and Adaptation Plan. Safe routes keeps cars off the street, which equals less pollution and healthier lifestyles.
First, a concern that earlier this summer (June) staff advertised these plans as open for formal comments until the end of August, but tithe the publication of this meeting's scheduled briefing the comment deadline was changed to August 23, cutting off a full week of review and comments.
The City's draft Climate Action and Adaptation Plan and General Plan as posted do not rise to the occasion that we face. Climate disasters, extreme heat and extreme cold days have been rising year on year during the planning period since the last Climate Action Plan and General Plan were adopted, yet neither of these documents deal with the crisis that we find ourselves in. They are simply put, documents designed to meet regulatory requirements imposed on the city by the state.
The vague language that is in many of the sections about the need to deal with the ever-increasing problems caused by climate change are not plans per se. They do not give us numbers of a resiliency centers needed by which year, they do not tell us how the City plans to provide for cooling in the face of increased extreme heat in any fashion that would could one could account for.
Last August, dozens of residents appeared at a Council meeting and demanded that the staff accelerate their planning and asked hard questions about the amount of money that staff were projecting for climate action. In the subsequent year those numbers have not been updated. The staff has just given excuses to City Council people who have asked in public where accelerated plans are and how much more it would cost to accelerate these programs, (see May counsel meeting) and, as a result the increasing hazards of climate change that are happening will be experienced by the city and the residents of the city almost as if we did nothing at all to prepare for it, or prepared for it at a fraction of the rate that we know that is likely to happen.
The Sacramento Climate Coalition recommends the City Council appoint a citizen's Climate Emergency Task Force to begin the difficult but necessary task of reviewing each of the provisions in these documents and additional measures necessary to deal with the climate crisis we face, that the current IPCC Chair and other scientists are calling for, as they have warned us just this week that the cost of inaction is growing "every week, every month and every year."
July 2023 was the hottest month ever recorded on the planet, and IPCC chief, Jim Skea, pointed out that "global heat records underscored the pressing need to slash greenhouse gas emissions as quickly and as deeply as possible."
This is not the time for business as usual and the approval of pro forma plans.
Dear Mayor, Councilmembers and to all the city staff who have been working on the MP2040 and CAAP,
Thank you for all your hard work on these comprehensive documents that will guide us for the coming years. The urgency to address climate change is real and a huge challenge. I'm glad to see the increasing awareness of how our automobile-centric culture is causing harm to our environment and our health. The Streets For People plan shows promise to address some of the consequences of living in a world dominated by cars.
I would like to urge the city to ALSO integrate the Safe Routes To Schools policies and principles into both the master plan and to the CAAP. SRTS is a proven strategy nationwide to reduce injuries to kids walking or rolling to school. Increased physical activity has clear health benefits. It reduces cars on the road and traffic congestion around schools. It reduces pollution. And it creates greater connection in our communities.
Please institutionalize the SRTS program in our long term planning documents. The tools it offers will support the existing goals.
I oppose the densification of Sacramento’s existing diverse single family neighborhoods. Densification will lead to reduction of our mature tree canopy. Densification reduces open space available for trees and plants that are critical summer cooling, reducing air pollution and promoting habitat for birds and insects. Densification also creates congestion on narrow streets not designed for high densities. It promotes urban sprawl by reducing and eliminating the option for single family homes inside the city. Densification also does not result in affordable housing.
I ask the City Council and city staff to keep the importance of the Urban Forest and our neighborhoods at the forefront. There are virtually no provisions in GP 2040 or the CAAP to protect our existing, mature tree canopy – 80% of which is on private property, much of it in residential front and back yards slated for upzoning and increased density. Please make sure this valuable component of our natural environment is protected.
Please see my attached comments on the lack of tree protection for our existing tree canopy as well as other elements of the draft Climate Action and Adaptation Plan. Thank you for your thoughtful consideration of my comments.
I support safe streets and safe routes. We need more routes for bicyclists to be protected from dangers,
I do not support the plan to implement multi use buildings and densification and destroy our tree canopy,
greenhouse gases don’t frighten me as much as needles and human waste
I support the Safe Routes to School within the Climate Action and Adaptation Plan. Safe routes allow us to have a quality of life without driving, travel by walking, biking and running. This will reduce pollution and increase livability in our community.
Please support the adoption of a Safe Routes to School program in the General Plan and Climate Action and Adaptation Plan. Safe Routes to School allows children and adults to travel safely to/from school while reducing air and noise pollution and fostering physical fitness. Having Safe Routes to School benefits everyone in the community while encouraging active participation of everyone in the immediate community. I echo Jordan Grimaldi of Civic Thread's comments "Transportation is the largest contributing sector to the City’s greenhouse gas emissions
and school commuting plays a large role. Due to significant school district transportation
budget cuts and roll-ups of crossing guard programs, the vast majority of students get
to school by Single Occupancy Vehicle. That means thousands of families making twice
daily car trips for over 180 days of the year. Roadway safety also plays a critical factor.
According to the City’s Vision Zero School Safety Study, Sacramento had the highest
number of speed related traffic fatalities and the most collisions resulting in fatalities
or serious injuries involving pedestrians under the age of 15 of any city in California.
City-wide policies and programs for Safe Routes to School can maximize the numerous
community-wide co-benefits it offers, including cleaner air, safer roads and sidewalks,
and lower rates of chronic diseases related to physical activity and air pollution
exposure. MTC’s regional Safe Routes to School pilot program in the Bay Area found an
“average 4.8% reduction in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions per student for trips one
mile or less from school. If all students enrolled in public schools at all nine counties
received Safe Routes programming, it could reduce as much as of 5.3 million pounds of
GHG emissions from transportation due to school trips.”
Another study of Safe Routes to School programming across 37 large urban areas, 428 small urban areas, 1088
metropolitan counties estimated 65.5 million people in urban areas could benefit from
resulting increases physical activity and better air quality.
Such benefits are especially critical in Sacramento’s Environmental Justice communities where there are
significant health disparities and disproportionate rates of pedestrian and cyclist injuries
and fatalities."
Please support Safe Routes to School and support our communities.
I support the importance of Sacramento’s Urban Forest and our established neighborhoods – in the Climate Action and Adaptation Plan, the 2040 General Plan, and all the accompanying documents. I ask the City Council and city staff to keep the importance of the Urban Forest and our neighborhoods at the forefront. There are virtually no provisions in GP 2040 or the CAAP to protect our existing, mature tree canopy - 80% of which is on private property, much of it in residential front and back yards slated for upzoning and increased density.
I oppose the densification of Sacramento’s existing diverse single family neighborhoods. Densification will lead to reduction of our mature tree canopy. Densification reduces open space available for trees and plants that are critical summer cooling, reducing air pollution and promoting habitat for birds and insects. Densification also creates congestion on narrow streets not designed for high densities. It promotes urban sprawl by reducing and eliminating the option for single family homes inside the city. Densification also does not result in affordable housing.
I support policies that will actually create more affordable housing, especially for lower income households, not false claims that affordable housing will result from more Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) or densification of existing single family neighborhoods. One meaningful action the city can take is to prohibit non-owner occupied housing, including ADUs, from being used as short-term rentals, which are defacto hotel rooms and reduce our housing stock.
I oppose the deification of Sacramento's existing diverse single family neighborhoods. Densification will lead to reduction of our mature tree canopy. Densification reduces open space available for trees and plants that are crlticalsummer cooling, reducing air pollution and promoting habitat for birds and insects. Densification also creates congestion on streets. It promotes urban sprawl by reducing and eliminating the option for single family homes inside the city. Densification also does not result in affordable housing.
Karl and SUZY WAHLBORG
2907 Muir Way
Sacramento, CA. 95818
Dear City of Sacramento councilmembers, staff, and consultant team,
I am writing to urge the City of Sacramento to join the growing number of municipalities across the nation in adopting strong, comprehensive Safe Routes to School policies in its General Plan and Climate Action and Adaptation Plan. As cited in the City’s Vision Zero School Safety Study, Sacramento had the highest number of speed related traffic fatalities and the most collisions resulting in fatalities or serious injuries involving pedestrians under the age of 15 of any city in California. Within this context, it is not an exaggeration to say students and families must risk their lives to get to school.
Safe Routes to school is a nation-wide movement that has been around for over twenty years. Countless studies have shown its effectiveness in improving safety outcomes for youth and significantly increasing the number of students who walk, bike, and roll to school. Safe Routes to School offers numerous academic, health, and economic benefits for students and families. Such benefits extend to the broader community through reduced traffic congestion, cleaner air, safer roads and sidewalks, and lower rates of chronic diseases related to physical activity and air pollution exposure, and are particularly critical in Sacramento’s Environmental Justice communities.
Thank you for your consideration and for your support in creating a safer, healthier, more active Sacramento.
I support the importance of Sacramento’s Urban Forest and our established neighborhoods – in the Climate Action and Adaptation Plan, the 2040 General Plan, and all the accompanying documents. I ask the City Council and city staff to keep the importance of the Urban Forest and our neighborhoods at the forefront. There are virtually no provisions in GP 2040 or the CAAP to protect our existing, mature tree canopy - 80% of which is on private property, much of it in residential front and back yards slated for upzoning and increased density.
I support policies that will actually create more affordable housing, especially for lower-income households, not false claims that affordable housing will result from more Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) or densification of existing single-family neighborhoods. One meaningful action the city can take is to prohibit non-owner-occupied housing, including ADUs, from being used as short-term rentals, which are defacto hotel rooms and reduce our housing stock.
I also support policies that will create actual solutions for the unhoused. I’m currently embarrassed with our city. It feels as though the unhoused have more rights than taxpayers and local businesses. The current situation is unsafe, unsanitary and is not sustainable for our city to grow and flurish. Do we want to be like San Francisco, Seattle and Portland whose cities are dying due to the unhoused living on city streets with increased crime, human feces and unsafe interactions?
MEASURE E-4: Increase the Amount of Electricity Produced from Local Resources and Work with SMUD to Install Additional Local Storage by 2030
Unlike E-1, this measure will directly assist SMUD in meeting its goal for carbon free power by 2030 by adding both solar and storage. In this case, the Plan should credit the savings attributable to displacing gas-fired generation from SMUD’s fleet of power plants, as well as by reducing purchases from its current contract with Calpine’s Sutter Energy Center.
After 2030, adding solar to the grid will not further reduce GHG assuming SMUD achieves full carbon neutrality. But until then, local solar generation can help SMUD avoid renewable purchases and construction further afield. It is therefore important to act on this solar initiative early to achieve maximum GHG reduction. Local renewable generation will also boost the Plan’s Adaptation goals by assisting SMUD with added grid resiliency, particularly during peak stress periods.
Measure E-4.1 Encourage Solar and Storage. The measure promises to “continue to support and encourage solar and storage” without providing any clear directives on how it will. It does note local examples, including the City’s current 4.9 MW of cumulative solar production from multiple facilities. Others would be Sacramento State (3.0 MW solar with new batteries being added), the Sacramento International Airport (7.5 MW) and the Golden One Center (700 kW rooftop). All are on SMUD’s solar + storage rates, which caps generation output at consumption at the associated facility.
Recommendation. Initiate and implement new solar and battery installations at City facilities, beginning with these initial actions:
• Evaluate each of the existing solar projects at City facilities for adding batteries on SMUD’ new Power Optomizer incentive program.
• Conduct a full audit of City facilities to locate other favorable sites for solar and storage on building rooftops, parking garages and land adjacent to the Executive Airport or other locales.
Recommendation: Facilitate solar and storage projects on private buildings by streamlining the permit process.
Measure E-4.2 This measure would have the City work with SMUD to site renewable and storage projects. SMUD has already developed criteria for siting renewable projects based on environmental considerations, the preference for vacant, industrial, and non-agricultural lands, and suitability for grid access and support. However, as recently as 2022, SMUD initiated an unsuccessful RFP to third parties to propose local solar projects. The utility is also facing contentious opposition to a proposed solar project in a blue oak habitat in east County.
Recommendation: Clearly, SMUD needs help in finding good, clean sites for future local renewable projects and this measure could launch a fruitful collaborative and timely joint effort to meet this need.
• Establish a working group consisting of land use planners and appropriate SMUD staff to survey available lands within the City that meet SMUD’s siting criteria and can be proposed for future renewable power and storage projects.
• Develop a map of appropriate sites with their associated attributes as well identifying property owners and other interested parties.
Measure E-4.3. This measure would have the City work again with SMUD “to promote and further incentivize battery storage.” Having its solar customers add storage is a major focus for SMUD which this year launched its new battery incentive program. This need will become more and more pronounced as utility-scale solar floods the mid-day market, leaving non-solar peak hours vulnerable to shortages during critical demand periods.
Recommendation: Batteries pose a costly barrier to customer acceptance that goes beyond education and promotion. If the City is to play a role it must find funding to lower the initial cost.
Measure E-4.4 Community Solar. This measure would have City staff work with SMUD to develop at least 1 MW of community solar by 2030 on City property. Initially the GHG savings for a 1 MW City community solar project will be around 435 tons per year; with the addition of battery storage, these savings can be expected to remain near constant through 2030.
Community solar is best suited for stand-alone projects on sufficient acreage where the output is sold directly to SMUD. A solar facility of 1 MW or more benefits from lower installation costs due to economy of scale and the ability to add commercial scale storage more advantageously, such as the new iron-salt water flow batteries from ESS. The solar facility could be built and managed by the City directly, or the City could lease the land to a third-party or SMUD developer.
Recommendation: E-4.4 remains vague on the timeline for developing and deploying one or more Community Solar projects. This timeline needs to specifically include the following tasks:
• Surveying suitable City-owned sites for a large scale Community Solar project,
• Determine whether the City wishes to directly build and retain ownership of the project or simply lease the land to a third-party or SMUD developer.
• Developing and issuing an RFP for solar contractors.
• Discussions and negotiations with SMUD on the terms of power purchase.
I am a volunteer with Trees for Sacramento; the tree canopy coverage goals in the GP are inadequate? Sacramento could support a tree canopy of 45.4%. Is a canopy 10 percentage points lower than our potential what Sacramentans want? We think not. We believe the goal in 2030 should be 35% and in 2045 should be 45%. Austin, Texas has a current tree canopy that is higher that Sacramento's 2045 goal. This is not acceptable for the City of Trees. Please increase those goals
There are few things in civic life that qualify as win-win-win propositions, but a comprehensive, systems-level approach to Safe Routes to School (SRS) programing is one of the few. First and foremost, strong SRS is needed to protect our city’s most precious resource – our children and youth. According to the city’s Vision Zero School Safety Study, Sacramento has the highest number of speed related traffic fatalities and the most collisions resulting in fatalities or serious injuries involving pedestrians under the age of 15 of any Californian city. Second, providing safe ways for kids to walk, bike, and roll to school also offers measurable health and academic benefits, as well as benefits to the larger community, such as improved traffic congestion, cleaner air, and safer roads and sidewalks. Third, SRS addresses historical infrastructure inequities and, thereby, promotes environmental justice.
I thus stand with many fellow Sacramento citizens in encouraging the City of Sacramento to prioritize SRS programming in the city’s General Plan 2040. Thank you.
We are fast approaching the tipping point where there will be no return. Your CAAP is too little and too late. There's widespread crop failures, it is uninhabitable to live in many parts of the world, and this is the plan will do nothing. We're facing a nightmarish future and soon and this plan will do nothing to stop the hurricanes, flooding, droughts, excess heat, excess carbon, and the deaths of all species of life on the planet. You have a responsibility to take action to stop the carbon. This plan will not save us. I am very sad for my adult children and all the people who are going to be alive to see mass starvation and wars.
I support safe streets and safe routes. You can't believe in climate change issues without providing safe, clean streets for everyone. This also include clearing storm drains and rivers from filth and needles that are toxic to all living things. Keep our tree canopy and increase it. Consider the mental health impacts to "stack and pack" housing with no outdoor spaces or parking for safe streets. Children need safe places to play and people need fresh air and space to take a break from time to time. We are a city of abundance, not scarcity. Please relfect that in how our city operates.
I am writing this response regarding the CAAP plan because it is missing substantial and enforceable language needed to promote and enable Active Transit (AT) as a real replacement for what feels like a very car dependent city. If the point of the CAAP is to form a response to climate change and enforce policies to create a net 0 emission Sacramento, then money is being put toward the wrong goals.
The CAAP is focusing on converting Sacramento to an EV city. Restrictions on gas stations unless they incorporate EV chargers, is a fine goal, but it focuses on the wrong problem, it sees the existence of gas-powered cars as the problem, rather than recognizing our dependence on them. The way Sacramento is built there has been endless infrastructure focused on making it easier to drive somewhere, wider streets, endless parking lots. The amount of space given to cars means business are farther apart, homes are far from businesses. when I want to buy a soda I cannot walk to the store, I must get into my car, and it is unnecessary.
I don't understand how the CAAP sees electric cars as the solution. I don't hate electric cars, but they should be the option when you truly need a car, and we should focus on making a world where we don't need a car for every little errand. However, EV's are heavy and expensive: The average EV is roughly 36% heavier than its non-EV counterpart, and between 42% and 139% more expensive depending on if someone is replacing a truck or a sedan.
Using the Power of 4 rule first established in road tests in the 50's, and shown since to be a very conservative multiplier, this increase in weight will result in a 144% increase in road wear per vehicle swapped to EV: The result of a 1 to 1 replacement of gas vehicles for EVs sees roughly 2.44 times as much road wear for every vehicle on the road, meaning a road with an expected life of 25 years with 10 year re-sealing and maintenance will now last 10.24 years and need resealing every 4. In a city where the current project list is 100 times greater than the project funding, it makes no sense to enforce a narrative expediting the wear and tear of infrastructure.
Add strong language that will create more protected bike lanes, remove barriers to entry for mixed use, make the bus and light rail dependable means of transit, including on weekends and evenings. if these services and options feel like the more comfortable way, the faster way to get to where we need to go, they are certainly less expensive for the city far less expensive on the individual, and they are far better for the environment.
Please keep our streets safe for children to walk to school within the Climate Action and Adaptation Plan. This also means keeping the streets free of trash, needles, and human waste.
I support the Safe Routes to School within the Climate Action and Adaptation Plan. Safe routes keeps cars off the street, which equals less pollution and healthier lifestyles.
First, a concern that earlier this summer (June) staff advertised these plans as open for formal comments until the end of August, but tithe the publication of this meeting's scheduled briefing the comment deadline was changed to August 23, cutting off a full week of review and comments.
The City's draft Climate Action and Adaptation Plan and General Plan as posted do not rise to the occasion that we face. Climate disasters, extreme heat and extreme cold days have been rising year on year during the planning period since the last Climate Action Plan and General Plan were adopted, yet neither of these documents deal with the crisis that we find ourselves in. They are simply put, documents designed to meet regulatory requirements imposed on the city by the state.
The vague language that is in many of the sections about the need to deal with the ever-increasing problems caused by climate change are not plans per se. They do not give us numbers of a resiliency centers needed by which year, they do not tell us how the City plans to provide for cooling in the face of increased extreme heat in any fashion that would could one could account for.
Last August, dozens of residents appeared at a Council meeting and demanded that the staff accelerate their planning and asked hard questions about the amount of money that staff were projecting for climate action. In the subsequent year those numbers have not been updated. The staff has just given excuses to City Council people who have asked in public where accelerated plans are and how much more it would cost to accelerate these programs, (see May counsel meeting) and, as a result the increasing hazards of climate change that are happening will be experienced by the city and the residents of the city almost as if we did nothing at all to prepare for it, or prepared for it at a fraction of the rate that we know that is likely to happen.
The Sacramento Climate Coalition recommends the City Council appoint a citizen's Climate Emergency Task Force to begin the difficult but necessary task of reviewing each of the provisions in these documents and additional measures necessary to deal with the climate crisis we face, that the current IPCC Chair and other scientists are calling for, as they have warned us just this week that the cost of inaction is growing "every week, every month and every year."
July 2023 was the hottest month ever recorded on the planet, and IPCC chief, Jim Skea, pointed out that "global heat records underscored the pressing need to slash greenhouse gas emissions as quickly and as deeply as possible."
This is not the time for business as usual and the approval of pro forma plans.
Dear Mayor, Councilmembers and to all the city staff who have been working on the MP2040 and CAAP,
Thank you for all your hard work on these comprehensive documents that will guide us for the coming years. The urgency to address climate change is real and a huge challenge. I'm glad to see the increasing awareness of how our automobile-centric culture is causing harm to our environment and our health. The Streets For People plan shows promise to address some of the consequences of living in a world dominated by cars.
I would like to urge the city to ALSO integrate the Safe Routes To Schools policies and principles into both the master plan and to the CAAP. SRTS is a proven strategy nationwide to reduce injuries to kids walking or rolling to school. Increased physical activity has clear health benefits. It reduces cars on the road and traffic congestion around schools. It reduces pollution. And it creates greater connection in our communities.
Please institutionalize the SRTS program in our long term planning documents. The tools it offers will support the existing goals.
Thank you!
Liz Johnson
D3 constituent and Northgate resident
I oppose the densification of Sacramento’s existing diverse single family neighborhoods. Densification will lead to reduction of our mature tree canopy. Densification reduces open space available for trees and plants that are critical summer cooling, reducing air pollution and promoting habitat for birds and insects. Densification also creates congestion on narrow streets not designed for high densities. It promotes urban sprawl by reducing and eliminating the option for single family homes inside the city. Densification also does not result in affordable housing.
I ask the City Council and city staff to keep the importance of the Urban Forest and our neighborhoods at the forefront. There are virtually no provisions in GP 2040 or the CAAP to protect our existing, mature tree canopy – 80% of which is on private property, much of it in residential front and back yards slated for upzoning and increased density. Please make sure this valuable component of our natural environment is protected.
Please see my attached comments on the lack of tree protection for our existing tree canopy as well as other elements of the draft Climate Action and Adaptation Plan. Thank you for your thoughtful consideration of my comments.
I support safe streets and safe routes. We need more routes for bicyclists to be protected from dangers,
I do not support the plan to implement multi use buildings and densification and destroy our tree canopy,
greenhouse gases don’t frighten me as much as needles and human waste
I support the Safe Routes to School within the Climate Action and Adaptation Plan. Safe routes allow us to have a quality of life without driving, travel by walking, biking and running. This will reduce pollution and increase livability in our community.
Dear Mayor Steinberg and City Councilmembers,
Please support the adoption of a Safe Routes to School program in the General Plan and Climate Action and Adaptation Plan. Safe Routes to School allows children and adults to travel safely to/from school while reducing air and noise pollution and fostering physical fitness. Having Safe Routes to School benefits everyone in the community while encouraging active participation of everyone in the immediate community. I echo Jordan Grimaldi of Civic Thread's comments "Transportation is the largest contributing sector to the City’s greenhouse gas emissions
and school commuting plays a large role. Due to significant school district transportation
budget cuts and roll-ups of crossing guard programs, the vast majority of students get
to school by Single Occupancy Vehicle. That means thousands of families making twice
daily car trips for over 180 days of the year. Roadway safety also plays a critical factor.
According to the City’s Vision Zero School Safety Study, Sacramento had the highest
number of speed related traffic fatalities and the most collisions resulting in fatalities
or serious injuries involving pedestrians under the age of 15 of any city in California.
City-wide policies and programs for Safe Routes to School can maximize the numerous
community-wide co-benefits it offers, including cleaner air, safer roads and sidewalks,
and lower rates of chronic diseases related to physical activity and air pollution
exposure. MTC’s regional Safe Routes to School pilot program in the Bay Area found an
“average 4.8% reduction in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions per student for trips one
mile or less from school. If all students enrolled in public schools at all nine counties
received Safe Routes programming, it could reduce as much as of 5.3 million pounds of
GHG emissions from transportation due to school trips.”
Another study of Safe Routes to School programming across 37 large urban areas, 428 small urban areas, 1088
metropolitan counties estimated 65.5 million people in urban areas could benefit from
resulting increases physical activity and better air quality.
Such benefits are especially critical in Sacramento’s Environmental Justice communities where there are
significant health disparities and disproportionate rates of pedestrian and cyclist injuries
and fatalities."
Please support Safe Routes to School and support our communities.
I support the importance of Sacramento’s Urban Forest and our established neighborhoods – in the Climate Action and Adaptation Plan, the 2040 General Plan, and all the accompanying documents. I ask the City Council and city staff to keep the importance of the Urban Forest and our neighborhoods at the forefront. There are virtually no provisions in GP 2040 or the CAAP to protect our existing, mature tree canopy - 80% of which is on private property, much of it in residential front and back yards slated for upzoning and increased density.
I oppose the densification of Sacramento’s existing diverse single family neighborhoods. Densification will lead to reduction of our mature tree canopy. Densification reduces open space available for trees and plants that are critical summer cooling, reducing air pollution and promoting habitat for birds and insects. Densification also creates congestion on narrow streets not designed for high densities. It promotes urban sprawl by reducing and eliminating the option for single family homes inside the city. Densification also does not result in affordable housing.
I support policies that will actually create more affordable housing, especially for lower income households, not false claims that affordable housing will result from more Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) or densification of existing single family neighborhoods. One meaningful action the city can take is to prohibit non-owner occupied housing, including ADUs, from being used as short-term rentals, which are defacto hotel rooms and reduce our housing stock.
I oppose the deification of Sacramento's existing diverse single family neighborhoods. Densification will lead to reduction of our mature tree canopy. Densification reduces open space available for trees and plants that are crlticalsummer cooling, reducing air pollution and promoting habitat for birds and insects. Densification also creates congestion on streets. It promotes urban sprawl by reducing and eliminating the option for single family homes inside the city. Densification also does not result in affordable housing.
Karl and SUZY WAHLBORG
2907 Muir Way
Sacramento, CA. 95818
Dear City of Sacramento councilmembers, staff, and consultant team,
I am writing to urge the City of Sacramento to join the growing number of municipalities across the nation in adopting strong, comprehensive Safe Routes to School policies in its General Plan and Climate Action and Adaptation Plan. As cited in the City’s Vision Zero School Safety Study, Sacramento had the highest number of speed related traffic fatalities and the most collisions resulting in fatalities or serious injuries involving pedestrians under the age of 15 of any city in California. Within this context, it is not an exaggeration to say students and families must risk their lives to get to school.
Safe Routes to school is a nation-wide movement that has been around for over twenty years. Countless studies have shown its effectiveness in improving safety outcomes for youth and significantly increasing the number of students who walk, bike, and roll to school. Safe Routes to School offers numerous academic, health, and economic benefits for students and families. Such benefits extend to the broader community through reduced traffic congestion, cleaner air, safer roads and sidewalks, and lower rates of chronic diseases related to physical activity and air pollution exposure, and are particularly critical in Sacramento’s Environmental Justice communities.
Thank you for your consideration and for your support in creating a safer, healthier, more active Sacramento.
Sincerely,
Jack Grimaldi
Curtis Park
I support the importance of Sacramento’s Urban Forest and our established neighborhoods – in the Climate Action and Adaptation Plan, the 2040 General Plan, and all the accompanying documents. I ask the City Council and city staff to keep the importance of the Urban Forest and our neighborhoods at the forefront. There are virtually no provisions in GP 2040 or the CAAP to protect our existing, mature tree canopy - 80% of which is on private property, much of it in residential front and back yards slated for upzoning and increased density.
I support policies that will actually create more affordable housing, especially for lower-income households, not false claims that affordable housing will result from more Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) or densification of existing single-family neighborhoods. One meaningful action the city can take is to prohibit non-owner-occupied housing, including ADUs, from being used as short-term rentals, which are defacto hotel rooms and reduce our housing stock.
I also support policies that will create actual solutions for the unhoused. I’m currently embarrassed with our city. It feels as though the unhoused have more rights than taxpayers and local businesses. The current situation is unsafe, unsanitary and is not sustainable for our city to grow and flurish. Do we want to be like San Francisco, Seattle and Portland whose cities are dying due to the unhoused living on city streets with increased crime, human feces and unsafe interactions?
MEASURE E-4: Increase the Amount of Electricity Produced from Local Resources and Work with SMUD to Install Additional Local Storage by 2030
Unlike E-1, this measure will directly assist SMUD in meeting its goal for carbon free power by 2030 by adding both solar and storage. In this case, the Plan should credit the savings attributable to displacing gas-fired generation from SMUD’s fleet of power plants, as well as by reducing purchases from its current contract with Calpine’s Sutter Energy Center.
After 2030, adding solar to the grid will not further reduce GHG assuming SMUD achieves full carbon neutrality. But until then, local solar generation can help SMUD avoid renewable purchases and construction further afield. It is therefore important to act on this solar initiative early to achieve maximum GHG reduction. Local renewable generation will also boost the Plan’s Adaptation goals by assisting SMUD with added grid resiliency, particularly during peak stress periods.
Measure E-4.1 Encourage Solar and Storage. The measure promises to “continue to support and encourage solar and storage” without providing any clear directives on how it will. It does note local examples, including the City’s current 4.9 MW of cumulative solar production from multiple facilities. Others would be Sacramento State (3.0 MW solar with new batteries being added), the Sacramento International Airport (7.5 MW) and the Golden One Center (700 kW rooftop). All are on SMUD’s solar + storage rates, which caps generation output at consumption at the associated facility.
Recommendation. Initiate and implement new solar and battery installations at City facilities, beginning with these initial actions:
• Evaluate each of the existing solar projects at City facilities for adding batteries on SMUD’ new Power Optomizer incentive program.
• Conduct a full audit of City facilities to locate other favorable sites for solar and storage on building rooftops, parking garages and land adjacent to the Executive Airport or other locales.
Recommendation: Facilitate solar and storage projects on private buildings by streamlining the permit process.
Measure E-4.2 This measure would have the City work with SMUD to site renewable and storage projects. SMUD has already developed criteria for siting renewable projects based on environmental considerations, the preference for vacant, industrial, and non-agricultural lands, and suitability for grid access and support. However, as recently as 2022, SMUD initiated an unsuccessful RFP to third parties to propose local solar projects. The utility is also facing contentious opposition to a proposed solar project in a blue oak habitat in east County.
Recommendation: Clearly, SMUD needs help in finding good, clean sites for future local renewable projects and this measure could launch a fruitful collaborative and timely joint effort to meet this need.
• Establish a working group consisting of land use planners and appropriate SMUD staff to survey available lands within the City that meet SMUD’s siting criteria and can be proposed for future renewable power and storage projects.
• Develop a map of appropriate sites with their associated attributes as well identifying property owners and other interested parties.
Measure E-4.3. This measure would have the City work again with SMUD “to promote and further incentivize battery storage.” Having its solar customers add storage is a major focus for SMUD which this year launched its new battery incentive program. This need will become more and more pronounced as utility-scale solar floods the mid-day market, leaving non-solar peak hours vulnerable to shortages during critical demand periods.
Recommendation: Batteries pose a costly barrier to customer acceptance that goes beyond education and promotion. If the City is to play a role it must find funding to lower the initial cost.
Measure E-4.4 Community Solar. This measure would have City staff work with SMUD to develop at least 1 MW of community solar by 2030 on City property. Initially the GHG savings for a 1 MW City community solar project will be around 435 tons per year; with the addition of battery storage, these savings can be expected to remain near constant through 2030.
Community solar is best suited for stand-alone projects on sufficient acreage where the output is sold directly to SMUD. A solar facility of 1 MW or more benefits from lower installation costs due to economy of scale and the ability to add commercial scale storage more advantageously, such as the new iron-salt water flow batteries from ESS. The solar facility could be built and managed by the City directly, or the City could lease the land to a third-party or SMUD developer.
Recommendation: E-4.4 remains vague on the timeline for developing and deploying one or more Community Solar projects. This timeline needs to specifically include the following tasks:
• Surveying suitable City-owned sites for a large scale Community Solar project,
• Determine whether the City wishes to directly build and retain ownership of the project or simply lease the land to a third-party or SMUD developer.
• Developing and issuing an RFP for solar contractors.
• Discussions and negotiations with SMUD on the terms of power purchase.