Letters of Concern from Wilton Regarding Elk Grove's SOI

In the last few days EGN has received several letters regarding Elk Grove's SOI from Wilton residents. Below are two more letters.
________________

This first letter was addressed to the Sacramento LAFCO and copied to several regional and local news outlets as well as Senator Dave Cox and Senate Leader Darrell Steinberg.

March 9, 2010

To: LAFCO Commissioners;

Reference: The City of Elk Grove’s proposed expansion of its Sphere of Influence (SOI) and the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the County of Sacramento and the City of Elk Grove.

As stated in EXHIBIT “B” of the City of Elk Grove –County of Sacramento Joint Policy Vision for the Cosumnes River Basin, the Cosumnes River and its flood plain are and important resource to the Sacramento Region. The emphasis should be on the word Region. The health and the well being of the Cosumnes River Basin have influence far beyond the City of Elk Grove. It provides for water recharge that impacts a large area of the south Sacramento County and has attributes that contribute to health of the Delta which is significant to the whole state. As wetlands it provides important flood control for all within the region. It provides habitat for wildlife whose well being is the charge of state and federal agencies. Placing the jurisdiction of policy and ultimate decision making (provided by the SOI and ultimate annexation) in the hands a small select urban body seems inconsistent with the value this resource has for both humans and wildlife not only in the region but within the state. (cont. on next page)



I am concerned that the Joint Policy Vision has no provision for Transitional Land Uses east of Highway 99 and south of Grantline Road. There is noted recognition of need for a compatible interface west of 99. Apparently there will be no conflict with Urbanization right up to the flood plain that is designated both agriculture and open space. Planners need to tell that to the mother who fears for her child or the owners whose dogs and cats provided dinner for mountain lions and coyotes. Human wildlife encounters have increased through out the state as urbanization has push back and infringed upon wildlife corridors and critical habitat as exemplified by the Cosumnes River Basin and flood plain area.

Other urban areas with groped with transitional land issues. The overwhelming results show the idea of being next to agriculture or a wildlife corridor are what fairytales are made about but in real life the liabilities far exceed the assets. People are not tolerant of many of the farming practices that make agriculture economically feasible. People do not abide by the “Keep Wildlife Wild” campaign from the Department of Fish and Game and the result is the farmer and the animal
loses!

Transitional land use needs to be configured with less population density. The idea of a 2 acre zone seems to indicate one resident per 2 acres however state law allows each main resident the right to construct an accessory dwelling resulting in 2 residences per 2 acres. Effective transitional parcels should be 5 acres resulting in a maximum density of one residence for 2.5 acres.

In the Vision Policy it stating that development with in the flood plan is unacceptable, this is a contradiction to what is allowed within FEMA regulations. Building in the floodplain is permitted provided the finished floor is a certain height above the 100 year flood level and is certified with a flood certificate. I submit that the words in #6 are simply smoke and mirrors, a diversion tactic trying to appease those in opposition. There is no provision that would prevent mitigation to circumvent restrictions. This section addresses planning activities only and we all know that planning policies can be changed. Remember money is “green”. Also the statement - “The City and the County agree that alteration of the floodplain to facilitate URBAN development shall be strictly prohibited.” As long as the development is not termed URBAN is alteration o.k.?

There is no guarantee that any governing body will preserve or protect the resources provided within the Cosumnes River Basin but all who are effected by and benefit from those resources should always have a voice in any decisions made that influence this area and their ultimate quality of life. This will SOI and control of it is in the hands of the City of Elk Grove. The Sacramento Region will lose one of its important resources. A resource which provides benefits that reach far beyond it boundaries.

Thank you for your consideration.

Respectfully,

Bobbie Winn
Wilton, CA

The second letter was addressed to the Sacramento LAFCO and the Sacramento County Board of Supervisors.

Is anybody out there listening?

The City of Elk Grove is out of control. In planning for future growth they want to expand their SOI into the Cosumnes/Deer Creek Flood Plain. They also indicate "no interest" in developing that ecologically sensitive area thus expansion into the Flood Plain, on their own admission, will do nothing toward alleviating future growth.

They have sponsored a number of "listening sessions" with a clear indication from the public that they need to withdraw from the floodplain. In response they are in the process of developing a Memorandum of Understanding between the City of Elk Grove and the County of Sacramento addressing the need to keep the flood plain in its natural state; however, they continue to insist that the flood plain remain in the SOI.

They are again scheduling "listening sessions" for public input. Their first meeting was held on March 2nd and the overwhelming response from the public was that they remove the flood plain from the SOI. They have scheduled additional "listening sessions" for community input. The City of Elk Grove continues to demonstrate its arrogance and dismissive attitude toward those for whom they serve.

The question arises as to what engine is propelling the City of Elk Grove, through its elected officials, to continue on a path which is opposed by individuals within the City of Elk Grove, surrounding areas adjacent to the City and Organizations involved in Conservation and Protection of sensitive areas.

How can a City with declining revenues, massive foreclosures, a transportation system in shambles, a huge undertaking (the Mall) being abandoned due to developer bankruptcy, and questionable use of tax funds justify expansion of its Sphere of Influence into an area, that on their own admission, will not assist them in planning for future growth.
Is there anyone out there really representing the majority opinion in this matter?

Eugene Rose
Wilton, CA