Thursday, February 16, 2006
Smart Growth--Misplaced Opposition
Editor's note: Over the past couple weeks, the ValleyVue news room has been restructuring and adding technology that will better serve our readers. We thank you for your patience. Today we present the beginning of a three part series on the planning troubles of the largest city in the Valley--Sacramento.
It was the best of plans; it was the worst of plans. This is a tale of two cities, or more accurately a city as it is and what it could be. In the politically super-charged environment that is Sacramento, locals often differ in their vision of the future. While most seem approving of the idea of making Sacramento "world-class", many disregard this bold vision in order to continue the practices of poor planning of the past.
One example is the Pocket neighborhood's opposition to a plan for densely packed housing on a vacant lot. This is why infill developments are so special--there are so many roadblocks on the way to completing the project. In this case, a local action group called the "Pocket Protectors" (only named in ValleyVue because of the cleverness of the name) blocked the project's first iteration to require an environmental review. While an environmental review sounds like a positive thing, the way the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) has evolved is into a way for individuals to challenge city or county approved projects in court.
While sometimes warranted to stop a government from approving projects that did not consider environmental impacts, the Pocket opposition in this case said the project would result in too much of a traffic impact. Therefore developers have come back with a scaled-back project, building fewer units per acre. This is a result that will not address the need for housing as well as the earlier plan did, which will no doubt result in more housing units being built on the urban fringe. There would be less traffic in the Pocket, but eventually more coming on freeways from the suburbs. Not even the current plans may result in construction though, as some Pocket residents are now trying to tell developers the only acceptable project will be one they espouse--single family homes.
______________________
Sources: ceres.ca.gov/ceqa, sacbee.com, writer Dan Borlik
It was the best of plans; it was the worst of plans. This is a tale of two cities, or more accurately a city as it is and what it could be. In the politically super-charged environment that is Sacramento, locals often differ in their vision of the future. While most seem approving of the idea of making Sacramento "world-class", many disregard this bold vision in order to continue the practices of poor planning of the past.
One example is the Pocket neighborhood's opposition to a plan for densely packed housing on a vacant lot. This is why infill developments are so special--there are so many roadblocks on the way to completing the project. In this case, a local action group called the "Pocket Protectors" (only named in ValleyVue because of the cleverness of the name) blocked the project's first iteration to require an environmental review. While an environmental review sounds like a positive thing, the way the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) has evolved is into a way for individuals to challenge city or county approved projects in court.
While sometimes warranted to stop a government from approving projects that did not consider environmental impacts, the Pocket opposition in this case said the project would result in too much of a traffic impact. Therefore developers have come back with a scaled-back project, building fewer units per acre. This is a result that will not address the need for housing as well as the earlier plan did, which will no doubt result in more housing units being built on the urban fringe. There would be less traffic in the Pocket, but eventually more coming on freeways from the suburbs. Not even the current plans may result in construction though, as some Pocket residents are now trying to tell developers the only acceptable project will be one they espouse--single family homes.
______________________
Sources: ceres.ca.gov/ceqa, sacbee.com, writer Dan Borlik
