SacCounty Climate Action Plan, November 6

Adoption of the Sacramento County Community Climate Action Plan is item 2 on the Sacramento County Board of Supervisors meeting on Wednesday, November 6, at 2:00 PM. I have not been following the Sacramento County CAP, as it is beyond my capacity, but several organizations have, and they are opposed to the plan under consideration. To summarize, the county has created a plan that won’t stand in the way of low density development at the edge of and beyond the county growth boundary. Translation: sprawl!

The best reference I’ve found is an email from 350Sacramento, so this is duplicated below.

“Tell supervisors: Don’t Approve

In 2011 Sac County promised to adopt a climate action plan (CAP), “within a year”. We’ve pushed them hard for five years to do that, and critiqued five technically and legally insufficient drafts. The problem is that the County is committed to approving several very large, high-GHG, sprawl developments outside the County’s growth boundary, and an effective CAP would get in the way.

This Wednesday the County will try to steam-roll us, adopting a final CAP with the same deficiencies as before, claiming the CAP isn’t subject to environmental requirements. We’re not buying it… Please click and send a pre-written email to County supervisors.

We’re making legal points, but feel free to substitute or add your own thoughts and feelings. Think of pointing out that elected officials are irresponsibly embracing land speculators and sprawl over protecting our environment.

All this proposed sprawl would do nothing to solve the housing crises: The County has already approved over a 100 years-worth of growth in infill and new projects. With the new sprawl they will have adopted almost 200-years of growth capacity. That won’t build-out in anyone’s lifetime; but it will start to build-out as small tracts scatter across the County – the worst possible land use for climate stabilization.

Make your voice heard and share this issue with others in your network!”

following Stockton City Limits

Courtesy of making the Streetsblog “front page” today for the article “Stockton less sprawling than Portland or Washington DC? Not so fast,” I became aware of the blog Stockton City Limits. It’s a great site that I recommend you look at, and I’ll be delving into the site more in the coming days. The topics are similar to this Getting Around Sacramento blog, including community, development, transportation, and smart growth. Stockton is similar in many ways to Sacramento, not just because it is on a river, but it is another classic Central Valley sprawl city which has a livable core but is surrounded by unsustainable suburbs with dismal walk scores and declining economies.

sprawl hurts

Two articles from the Sacramento Bee this Sunday illustrate how sprawl hurts us all.

How much water a community gulps varies across the Sacramento region (SacBee 2014-03-09)

The article highlights the remarkable variation in the amount of water used per capita by different areas in the region, with Granite Bay being the poster child for extensive lawns and landscaping. These exurban areas suck up the water that could be used for more productive domestic or agricultural purposes. This is not a lifestyle choice, this is extravagant misuse of our common resources. Where does this happen? Almost always in the exurbs. But many of these people still work in the urban core, their commutes eased by the freeways and arterials built with the money taken from the rest of us taxpayers. They have us coming and going. Literally.

Sacramento ‘ruralpolitans’ feed the animals, then don suits for city jobs (SacBee 2014-03-09)

The article highlights people who live in rural areas close to the urban core and commute to regular jobs. Another seeming lifestyle choice, made possible by the freeways and arterials that make it easy for people to live in a seeming rural paradise but work where the jobs are higher paying. They pay low property taxes, but benefit from the transportation network and other services that all of us pay for. If these people were actually serving some agricultural purpose, I’d be a lot more willing to provide some subsidy to their lifestyle, but they are only playing at agriculture, contributing nothing to the rest of us.

 

No to Cordova Hills

“Previous sprawl has sent Fresno to the edge of bankruptcy.” – Keith Bergthold , City of Fresno Planning and Development, at the Partnering with K-12 Education in Building Healthy, Sustainable & Competitive Regions, 2012-12-06

The Cordova Hills development is on the agenda for the Sacramento Board of Supervisors on this Wednesday, December 12. The meeting starts at 2:30 pm in the county board chambers at 700 H St in Sacramento.

I hope that a many people will attend and protest this development. This is sprawl of the worst kind. Not only is it beyond all developed areas, it is even beyond the county’s generous growth boundary. With no significant employment opportunities within or near the development, people would be commuting long distances to work in Sacramento, Elk Grove, Rancho Cordova, Folsom, and Roseville. More vehicle miles, more air pollution, more climate change, more taxes required to maintain infrastructure. Less community cohesiveness, less time, less open space.

Read More »