Addressing Greenhouse Gas Reduction on General Plan

This year the County of San Bernardino was sued for not addressing the issue of greenhouse gas reduction in the general plan.  However, California Attorney General Jerry Brown and the San Bernardino County came to a settlement agreement in which the county agreed to add a section in its general plan addressing the issue of greenhouse gas reduction.  Moreover, San Bernardino County has about a period of 30 months in which to do so. In the revised general San Bernardino County must "outline ways to reduce greenhouse gas emissions attributable to discretionary land-use decisions. The county also must prepare a greenhouse gas reduction plan that includes an inventory of emissions, reduction targets, and mitigation measure"[1].

The importance of this lawsuit is that it is "the first of its kind" in which a county was sued for not addressing the issue of greenhouse gas reduction in its plan.  Jerry Brown offered a number of mitigation measures that the county could implement.  Some of Brown suggestions are "high-density development that reduces vehicle trips, impact fees on development to fund public transit, construction of regional transit centers, and limited parking"[2].

The settlement agreement has been called both "a landmark agreement" by Jerry Brown, and  an "open-ended" agreement by Terry Rivasplata, air quality specialist because it does not state what mitigation measures are acceptable.  I think the settlement can be both while at the same time being an example that other counties can follow and learn from.  Moreover, this case also shows how important it has become to address the issue of greenhouse gas reduction as to greatly reduce the impacts of global warming.

------------------------------------------------------------

Source:

[1] Paul Shigley, "California County to Consider Greenhouse Gases in General Plan," Under News and Departments, American Planning Association Vol. 73, No. 10, November 2007.

[2] Ibid.

Coyote Valley Specific Plan

 

 

Last week in our Environmental Planning class we had two speakers talked about the Coyote Valley Specific Plan and some of its green strategies.  Some of the green features currently in the plan include district parking, shared schools and parks, greenbelt strategy to provide non-urban buffer between San Jose and Morgan Hill, and a self-funding transportation system.

Although all of these green features may be good ideas, the question in mind is whether they will work in making Coyote Valley a sustainable community.  I think that the district parking (shared parking) strategy will work because other cities have implemented that strategy.  As for the strategy of shared school and parks, I think that it would work as long as it was made known that schools have a priority during the day over the park for P.E. classes and recess.  However, when school is out for the day everyone can have access to the park and parts of the schools. The greenbelt strategy would definitely provide a buffer between cities that would definitely prevent anymore growth between cities.  Last but not the least the self-funding transportation system is still to be seen if it would work because the landowners would be the ones paying for it.  Moreover, transportation systems are not cheap and require ongoing maintenance which is very expensive.

Although the Coyote Valley Specific Plan is just now being put together, it will be  many years before the plan can be implemented.  However, I would be interested to see what Coyote Valley will look like when the plan is fully implemented.

How Do Older People Manage to Get Around in a Car-Based Society

 

As I was reading the article titled "Growing Old in a Car-centric World" by Meghan Stromberg, I realized once again that our society is really dependent on cars.  In order to get from place to place most Americans used their cars instead of public transportation.  The reason for that is that cars are very convenient means of transportation because we can go anywhere as we like.  Consequently, many people take driving for granted, and may not even have thought about the possibility of not being able to drive.  However, many older people are not able to drive anymore for a myriad of reasons.  Some of those reasons are: that "some have no access to a car, or they're prevented from driving because  of a physical impairment, or they self-regulate--choosing not to drive out of concern for their own safety"[1].  Another reason is personal preference.  In other words, some people just don't like driving, and choose not to. 

The question then becomes how do older people that are not driving for whatever reason get around.  Some people just do not go out much because they do not have the transportation means.  Other people are dependent on family members and relatives for rides to the grocery store, doctor, pharmacy, etc.  Older people living in rural areas are particularly very affected by not being able to drive because they are isolated.  They do not even have the possible option of taking public transportation or walking to their destination because they live too far away.  That is why cities have to provide different transportation options that cater to older people such as neighborhood shuttles. Moreover, as baby boomers are aging, cities will be even more pressed to expand their transportation options.

------------------------------------------------------------

Source:

[1] Meghan Stromberg, "Growing Old in a Car-centric World,"  American Planning Association, Vol. 73, No. 10, November 2007.

2007 CCAPA Conference

 

The California Chapter of the American Planning Association Conference (CCAPA) this year was held in the City of San Jose.  The CCAPA Conference took place from September 30 to October 3, 2007.  Although the Conference had many interesting lectures about sustainability, I was only able to attend one session.

The lecture I attended was titled "Seven Steps to Planning Sustainability" by Steve Coyle from HDR Town Planning. Mr. Coyle talked about  the “metrics of ‘TimeTesting,’  ‘Vernacular,’ ‘Pervasive,’ ‘Virtuous’ to evaluate ‘sustainable solutions’ to determine what’s developable, affordable and broadly accessible without the need for specialist or cause unintended consequences”[1].

Mr. Coyle also proposed "five sustainable strategies and techniques: 'Contained,' 'Connected,' 'Contextual,' 'Adaptable,' and 'Conservative,' to describe the means to develop or redevelop sustainable, human environments"[2]. The lecture was in itself interesting.  However, sometimes during the presentation I had a hard time following the presenter.  The five sustainable strategies  that Mr. Coyle talked about  to describe how to develop human environments would be great strategies to use because they all together encompass what sustainability is all about.

For example, the strategy of conservation as to conserve as many natural resources as possible  when developing sustainable living environments.  Moreover, the strategy of connectedness as to establish close connection between developments and grocery stores, entertainment, doctor offices, etc.  Connectedness is important in order to become less dependent in the use of cars, and consequently reduce the impacts of global warming.  Lastly, the strategy of containment is also very important as to develop living environments that make the best use of the land.

-------------------------------------------------------------

Source:

[1] Steve Coyle, "Seven Steps to Planning Sustainability," 2007 CCAPA Conference, San Jose, 21.

Airports Going Green

 

Going green is a growing trend in every economic sector.  Airports and airlines are not staying behind, and are indeed going green too.  William F. Hewitt in his article "The Only Way to Fly" talks about how airports and airlines are working on becoming more sustainable in great part for economic reasons.  However, it does not matter as much why they are going green, what matters more is that airports and airlines are changing towards sustainability.

In Hewitt's article airports are defined as cities "with utilities, transportation, businesses, even parks and recreation in some cases, and residences and training facilities"[1]. In other words, airports are cities in their own that use many resources to function.  That is why the fact that airports and airlines are going green is excellent news.

Hewitt gives some examples of what some airports around the  U.S. are doing to become sustainable. Some of the examples include the San Francisco International Airport which is currently studying how much jet fuel could be saved if airplanes were towed to the runway. Another interesting area in which airports are focusing is food service.  Portland International Airport "has an ambitious food waste collection and composting program" in which waste from the kitchens and plates are collected and sent to a nearby facility for composting.  These two examples alone show that some airports are taking seriously the concept of sustainability.  However, the key in making a big difference is convincing other airports that going green is the future not only economically but also environmentally.

                    Portland International Airport

 

-----------------------------------------------------------

Source:

[1] William F. Hewitt, "The Only Way to Fly," American Planning Association, Vol. 73, No. 10, November 2007.

Collaborative Planning for Wildlife Conservation

Lindell Marsh & Christian Marsh were the guest speakers on October 29, 2007 on our Environmental Planning Class.  They talked about how Collaborative Planning for Wildlife Conservation has come about over the years. Lindell Marsh, a graduate from Hastings College of the Law, has extensive experience in issues related to the environment specifically to natural resources and  land use.[1] Christian Marsh, Lindell's son, also has extensive experience on matters related to natural resources.

Lindell Marsh started the presentation by talking a little bit about the history of planning.  He pointed out that World War II was characterized as a period of unrestrained development.  Development continue growing with "no limits" until the Environmental Revolution started with the creation of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) in 1969.  NEPA was then followed by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in 1970. Lindell described both NEPA and CEQA as "the seeds of a different planning logic" that would change completely how development and planning are carried out taking into great consideration the effects on the environment.

Mr. Marsh also talked about the San Bruno Mountain Habitat Conservation Plan, the first habitat conservation plan in the United States.  Lindell played a major role in the development of the San Bruno Mountain HCP approved by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in 1983.  The plan was a  three-year long collaborative process between three cities, a county, many landowners, resources agencies as well as conservation groups.  The San Bruno Mountain HCP was composed of the plan, an agreement, and an environmental assessment and report.  The agreement for the plan was for thirty years, and it covered 51 species (listed and unlisted).

Towards the end of the presentation Mr. Marsh and his son both talked about 4 elements essential to successful strategic collaborative planning.  The four elements are: 1) "Collaboration web"-gathering the group of affected agencies and interested, 2)"Dialogue," 3)"Visions and Initiatives," 4)"Scoping."

I felt that the presentation overall was very informative and interesting because Mr. Lindell Marsh and Mr. Christian Marsh have both extensive experience and knowledge on the topic.

-------------------------------------------------------------

Sources:

[1] Lindell L. Marsh, 

http://lindellmarsh.com/lm/index.htm [Accessed December 5, 2007].

Creating More Sociable Subdivisions

As I was reading the article titled “6 Steps to Creating More Sociable Subdivisions” I started thinking about what makes communities sociable. One key aspect of sociable communities lies in people getting to know their neighbors, and feeling part of the community.  However, what steps are necessary to increase greatly the chances of people interacting with their neighbors on more regular basis. According to the article the six steps that could make subdivisions more sociable are:

----Reducing size of backyard as to encourage activities  such as barbecuing and gardening to the front of the house.
----Discouraging fences and sharing play equipment with neighboring children.
----Transforming driveways into patios as to increase interaction between neighbors.
----Changing the landscaping of front yards to include more vegetation as to make front yards more relaxing and inviting.
----Creating “cluster mailboxes” in new subdivisions as to increase the possibility of neighbors interacting with each other.
----Creating walkable streets composed of wide sidewalks accompanied with trees and plants, and reducing the width of streets as to slow down traffic.

 

Although these suggestions to make subdivisions more sociable are great ideas, I can’t help to wonder which of these suggestions would be more successful in creating more sociable subdivisions. Making front yards the main outdoor gathering places of homes would definitely have an impact on how neighbors interact with each other.  The reasons being that front yards being surrounded by beautiful vegetation would create a more relaxing and inviting setting in which people would feel more comfortable and willing to interact with their neighbors.  Especially if people find themselves sharing the same hobbies such as gardening and reading with their next door neighbors.  The beautification of sidewalks would make the streets even more inviting for everyone.

On the other hand, I feel that even though the idea of “cluster mailboxes” may work, it makes me wonder to what extent it would be increase the sociability aspect of a community.  As an apartment renter I have observed that often times people are more interested with going through their mail than with what is going in their surroundings.  Therefore, I feel that even thought “cluster mailboxes” may increase people’s encounters with other neighbors, there will not be a great increase of quality interaction between neighbors.  However, it would be helpful to keep in mind that all communities are unique in their own ways, and that what may work for some communities.

 

---------------------------------------------------------

Source:

Darrin Nordahl, "6 Steps to Creating more Sociable Subdivisions,"  American Planning Association Vol. 73, No. 11 December 2007.