Friday, March 28, 2008
Developers in Rancho Cordova could get break on mitigation rules
General plan amendment would relax habitat preservation requirements
Sacramento Business Journal - by Celia Lamb Staff writer
Rancho Cordova officials might relax requirements for developers to offset the environmental impacts of new projects.
The city planning commission voted March 13 in support of amending the natural resources section of the city's general plan, a blueprint for its growth through 2050. City planning director Paul Junker said the City Council might consider approving the amendments April 21.
The new language would water down rules that protect wildlife habitat by adding the qualifier "where feasible" or "to the maximum extent feasible" to requirements for interconnected habitat, restrictions on roads through wildlife preserves and other development limitations. Economic and social factors could be considered along with environmental, legal and technological factors to determine feasibility. Channelizing creeks into concrete corridors, which previously would "not be supported," would now "be discouraged, but is not prohibited."
The proposed changes address issues raised in a lawsuit against Rancho Cordova filed by the California Native Plant Society in September 2006. The suit challenged the city's approval of an environmental impact report and entitlements for the Preserve at Sunridge, a 2,700-home development and commercial "village center" planned in the Sunrise-Douglas community.
In July, a Sacramento County Superior Court judge ruled that the plan for offsetting environmental damage from the project did not comply with the city's general plan. The mitigation plan should have identified locations and performance criteria for vernal pools, he decided.
Rancho Cordova city attorney Adam Lindgren said the judge simply misinterpreted the general plan. The city has appealed the decision.
"The lower court required a tighter fit (with the general plan) than the law requires," Lindgren said. "We want to address the legal standard for general plan consistency."
Although there is no direct connection between the lawsuit and the proposed general plan changes, "the lawsuit did show us how the general plan could be misinterpreted," Lindgren added.Junker characterized the proposed general plan alterations as minor housekeeping tasks.
"The scope of these changes is fairly narrow," he added. "We're committed to natural resource preservation, but we want to make sure the policy language is correct and really precise."
But environmental activist Carol Witham, who helped lead the CNPS lawsuit, said the proposed changes would introduce too much "wiggle room" for developers.
"That is a very troubling document," Witham said. "It completely dilutes any intent language down to essentially nothing. It was pretty good, strong language regarding natural resources initially."
She's also concerned with proposed changes that she thinks could diminish the roles of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the state Department of Fish and Game in helping the city craft requirements for mitigating environmental harm caused by new development. The proposed changes would put mitigation decisions in the hands of the city but allow for comment from the two agencies. Under the current general plan, the agencies work with the city to design mitigation plans.
The proposed changes would affect future projects, including four specific plans under review -- Westborough, Rio Del Oro, Suncreek and The Arboretum-Waegell.
"This won't affect projects already approved," Junker said. So, it won't help settle the lawsuit over the Preserve at Sunridge.
clamb@bizjournals.com | 916-558-7866