For an effective, Lawful Climate Action Plan (CAP)

Sacramento County Board of Supervisors

Hello friend.  We've been trying for a long time to get Sacramento County to get its act together and come up with a Climate Action Plan (CAP) to get us on a path to reducing carbon emission, and building a sustainable, livable future for all of us.

The County has now released its “final draft” CAP.  Some language is revised, but fundamental problems remain.  It appears we’re about to be saddled with an ineffective plan that will stall needed climate action for years to come.

The County has scheduled a March 23, 6 PM Board workshop to receive public input and discuss the CAP.  There will not be a vote but this is a key event – Supervisors’ comments to staff, hopefully prompted by public concern, will determine whether the CAP is improved before it comes back to them for approval.  Public comment ends March 23.

You can keep reading for more context, but here's our ask:

We need your voice. Use this tool and the below info to prevent Sacramento County from committing to a bad climate plan.

We need a good, visionary CAP to set the direction for a livable future!

WHAT YOU CAN DO: Three things – any one is good, three are great!

·         Sign the petition. Just follow the prompts to the right. See the petition at the bottom of this page.

·         Send an email to your County Supervisor and County staff at ClimateActionPlan@saccounty.gov.  Whether you dive in and share your story, or even if your comment is just a sentence, every comment matters. Feel free to use some of the talking points below. To find your Supv and email address see under "LET THE COUNTY KNOW YOU’RE WATCHING further down this page.  Include your address to show you live in the District, and please cc us so we can track responses: capteam@350sacramento.org

·         Phone-in comments to the workshop. A two-minute live phone message from someone who cares enough to show up in-person delivers a powerful message. You can follow instructions on the Sup’s meeting page (URL below), but even better:

We’ll provide training Fri, Mar 18, 6PM. Ideas for what to say, how to phone-in, what to expect: https://us06web.zoom.us/j/86223336184 (meeting ID: 862 2333 6184)

TALKING POINTS FOR EMAILS

We want a stronger CAP because:

1.   This CAP doesn’t meet State requirements- measures must be enforceable, funded, and developed with consideration of feasible alternatives, such as promoting infill growth over continued sprawl, and be supported by substantial evidence,

·     Key measures are voluntary and unenforceable, e.g., carbon sequestration by farmers; electrification and energy efficiency upgrades by homeowners.

·     There’s no evidence for assumed adoption rates of voluntary measures, such as carbon sequestration by farmers, or electrification and energy conservation retrofits by homeowners.

·     Budgeting costs and funding sources are not identified for proposed County outreach, incentive programs, and future planning.

2.   This CAP doesn’t fulfill previous promises.  In 2011 the County legally promised to adopt a CAP in one year, to include “detailed” programs and performance measures, economic analysis, and timelines; and to consider, “Shifting development patterns to an emphasis on compact development”.  Now, eleven years later,

·         Measures are not detailed, relying on future planning to determine the specifics and feasibility of proposed electrification requirements, carbon sequestration, and carbon offsets.

·         There is no economic analysis.

·         There are no timelines, only a 2030 goal with few or no interim milestones to show beforehand whether that goal will be met.

·         There is no serious discussion of changing County planning from sprawl to more compact development.

3.   This CAP perpetuates delay, repeating the County’s eleven-year history of “kicking the can down the road”, by presenting poorly detailed measures and deferring their necessary further development to future planning;

4.     This CAP doesn’t reduce future auto traffic, the County’s largest GHG source.  Instead, the CAP,

·         Fails to consider using County land use  authority to prioritize infill over sprawl.

·           Continues to allow development outside the County’s adopted growth boundary, which will permanently increase traffic and GHG;

·           Does not consider the sprawl impacts of approving far more housing than is needed to accommodate projected growth.

5.   This CAP has some solid electrification proposals, but “subject to feasibility/cost-effectiveness” doesn’t cut it.

·         It's the County’s responsibility to determine that measures are feasible and cost-effective before proposing them, not after they’re adopted in the CAP.

·         Having measures contingent on future analysis means we don’t actually know what we’ll end up with, and how effective it will be.

·         Any needed studies need to be done now, with results reflected in the CAP – so the public and Supervisors know what the County is actually committing to.

6.   This CAP avoids environmental review.  The County claims it doesn’t have to prepare a CAP environmental analysis, thereby evading State standards for CAP quality.  Courts in San Diego County found this improper, but even if it were correct, presenting weak and uncertain measures doesn’t show a good-faith effort to seriously address climate change.

7.   This CAP defies the County’s Climate Emergency Declaration, which directed staff to outline in the CAP how the County could reach carbon-neutrality by 2030, identify funding gaps, and make recommendations. Instead, the CAP delegates this work to a future volunteer task force.

8.   This CAP will facilitate sprawl, because future projects will need only meet its ineffective measures, without further environmental review. Therefore, adopting the draft would be worse than the County having no CAP.

LET THE COUNTY KNOW YOU’RE WATCHING.

Find your Supervisor and email: www.saccounty.gov/SupervisorLookUp/Pages/default.aspx

Supervisor meetings: https://sccob.saccounty.gov/Pages/BOSPublicMeetings.aspx

More CAP info?  https://350sacramento.org/sacramento-county-cap-fact-sheets/

Sponsored by
350sac_logo_crop
Sacramento, CA

To: Sacramento County Board of Supervisors
From: [Your Name]

PETITION

TO THE SACRAMENTO COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS

FOR AN EFFECTIVE, LAWFUL CLIMATE ACTION PLAN (CAP)

BECAUSE:

I am deeply concerned about climate change, which severely threatens the health, wealth, and well-being of Sacramento County residents, including me and my loved ones for generations to come;

I believe Sacramento County must make its utmost, good-faith effort to reduce GHG emissions, consistent with the level of threat and California’s climate goals, and in doing so it can and must address historic social inequities and promote high-quality, walk-able and ride-able neighborhoods, serviced by affordable transit;

I believe in and applaud the Sacramento County Board of Supervisors’ declaration of a climate emergency (CED) in December 2020 and expect the County to outline the steps to reach carbon zero by 2030 in its CAP;

I know that automobiles and the vehicle miles they travel (VMT) are the single greatest source of GHG in Sacramento County, and the revised final draft CAP does not meaningfully address VMT, or provide credible permanent reductions in GHG, but instead:

1. Continues to allow developers to build sprawl development outside the County’s adopted growth boundary, which will permanently increase VMT and GHG;

2. Continues to “kick the can down the road” by presenting poorly detailed measures, and deferring their necessary further development to future planning;

3. Relies on continued sprawl to fund measures included in the CAP, antithetical to the very purpose of the CAP;

4. Contradicts the County’s adopted Climate Emergency Declaration by assigning planning for carbon neutrality to a volunteer Task Force, rather than having staff present recommendations in the CAP;

5. Does not meet State regulatory requirements that measures be supported by substantial evidence; and be enforceable, funded, and developed with consideration of feasible alternatives, such as promoting infill growth over continued sprawl.

6. Does not fulfill the County’s 2011 promise that the CAP would include “detailed” programs and performance measures, economic analysis, and timelines; and would consider, “Shifting development patterns to an emphasis on compact development”.

I also know that the revised final draft is so weak it will facilitate more sprawl, because future projects need only meet its ineffective measures, without further environmental review. Therefore, adopting the draft would be worse than the County having no CAP;

Finally, I do not believe that the public has been adequately advised and consulted during the preparation of the CAP;

THEREFORE, I RESPECTFULLY ASSERT:

1 The Board of Supervisors should not adopt the current revised final draft of the CAP because of its above-cited deficiencies;

2. The Board of Supervisors should direct staff to draft a CAP that clearly reduces future VMT, does not use sprawl as a primary funding source, outlines steps to reach carbon zero by 2030, and includes measures that both satisfy State regulatory requirements and fulfill the County’s 2011 promises. This must include robust, communitywide public involvement.