Comment Log Display
Below is the comment you selected to display.
Comment 14 for Land Use Comments for the GHG Scoping Plan (sp-landuse-ws) - 1st Workshop.
First Name: Thomas
Last Name: Clark
Email Address: tclark@hughson.org
Affiliation: City of Hughson
Subject: Local Government Actions
Comment:
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.
Attachment:
Original File Name:
Date and Time Comment Was Submitted: 2008-07-18 15:21:49
If you have any questions or comments please contact Office of the Ombudsman at (916) 327-1266.