Comment Log Display

Targeting land use is incorrectly viewed as a panacea for reduction
of GHG emissions and should not lead to an increase in the
statewide target of a 2M ton reduction. Many of the issues people
think are caused by poor land use planning decisions are not in
the hands of local government or have lower funding priorities
with limited resources available. Consider the following:

a. Schools. School siting for example is one of the leading causes
of sprawl in the Central Valley. Local land use laws do not apply
to schools. School construction is controlled by the local school
district with funding from the State. When schools are sited
outside of the orderly growth patterns of a city limit, the
resultant stretch of necessary utilities and streets causes growth
to extend past planned boundaries.

b. Jobs-Housing Balance. This is a concept that has many practical
obstructions. The high-paying jobs are in the Bay Area but the low
cost housing is in the Central Valley. The Central Valley has been
trying for decades to attract companies from the Bay Area but the
low level of higher education has discouraged most companies to
move. There are not a lot of farm laborers with college degrees.
So people live in the Valley and commute to the Bay. Things might
change if you discourage funding for freeway widening and let the
Altamont Pass go to gridlock. 

c. Transportation. 1. Funding for all modes of transportation is
below those levels needed to construct needed infrastructure. The
City of Hughson for example has a pedestrian and bicycle plan but
there are no monies to fund the necessary improvements. As
development occurs, those facilities needed to improve bicycle and
pedestrian movements are installed but funding for existing areas
is non-existent. Within this limited funding scenario, the
priority is to always fill the potholes before building bike
lanes. 2. Urban and suburban areas have polar opposite public
transportation needs and perceptions. In suburban areas, only
those in low income brackets ride buses. The result is that those
who may wish to decrease their carbon footprint by using public
transportation are discouraged by fear - rightly or wrongly. This
is a social and educational issue.

d. Loss of Farmland. The Central Valley produces mostly what one
would consider specialty crops. We do not feed the world. We grow
almonds. The grocery store where I shop carries Florida oranges.
This is an interstate commerce issue. You can't move to Hughson so
that you will be next to your food production. The acreage of
farmland in Stanislaus County has actually grown over recent
years, not decreased. 

e. Blueprint Process. The public participation for the Blueprint
Process in Stanislaus County equates to .002% of the population.
The percentage is so statistically insignificant; the data should
not be used. However, we understand that the legislature now has
the camel's nose under the tent in land use by using this process,
and we further understand that higher densities in land use will be
mandated in the near future. But suburban cities don't build
housing. Private development needs to have incentives to build
affordable multi-story housing and their money to build comes from
the banks, who don't loan on what they consider non-conventional
projects. We have tried for years to put innovative projects on
the ground but the lending institutes will always have their way.
The City of Hughson has the densest per-acre population in our
General Plan than any other city in the County but no one will
come build in the zones we have provided unless it is the usual
R-1 bank financed project. We plan for it but the private sector
makes it happen. Again there is a misperception that this is the
fault of poor land use planning practices when it is not.

Recommendations:

1. Hold school districts responsible for reductions in GHG
emission  along with other forms of local government. This will
have to be done at the State level through legislative action to
amend current laws. 

2. Ensure that funding is available for pedestrian and bicycle
facilities so that transportation dollars are not all spent on
roads.

3. Differentiate between urban and suburban public transportation
requirements. Denser populations are better poised structurally
and socially to take advantage of public transportation.

4. Include interstate commerce regulation and lending institute
reform in the Scoping Plan.

5. Do not increase the 2M ton statewide goal for local government
with the mistaken belief that all the land use woes are caused by
poor planning when in fact, no matter how good the plan, someone
has to want to build it that way.