Sierra Club director speaks out on LCP update

This is what the California Coastal Act says about infrastructure expansion:

“30254. New or expanded public works facilities shall be designed and limited to accommodate needs generated by development or uses permitted consistent with the provisions of this division; provided, however, that it is the intent of the Legislature that State Highway Route 1 in rural areas of the coastal zone remain a scenic two-lane road. Special districts shall not be formed or expanded except where assessment for, and provision of, the service would not induce new development inconsistent with this division. Where existing or planned public works facilities can accommodate only a limited amount of new development, services to coastal-dependent land use, essential public services and basic industries vital to the economic health of the region, state, or nation, public recreation, commercial recreation, and visitor-serving land uses shall not be precluded by other development.”

In other words, infrastructure shall not be expanded to induce or facilitate the growth of non-coastal dependent or non-visitor serving uses (such as the doubling of residential housing on the Midcoast that Supervisor Rich Gordon favors).

Comment 2 by Charlie Gardner  on  Apr 04  at  8:31am  •  All my comments • 

“In other words” is not what this Act says. What it says is specific, “Where existing or planned public works facilities can accommodate only a limited amount of new development, services…shall not be precluded by other development.”

Perhaps the more progressive approach would be to provide the “essential public services” as a priority to support the basic public need to adequate roads, water, sewer, and schools.

I haven’t checked, but I bet this is what Supervisor Rich Gordon actually favors.

Charlie, I think we can all agree that the exisiting Coastside infrastructure “can accommodate only a limited amount of new development.” The road system arguably cannot accommodate ANY new development because it’s already maxed out.

The Coastal Act says that the limited infrastructure capacity should not be absorbed by things like new residential housing because it is neither coastal dependent or visitor serving.

Building new infrastructure capacity could change this situation, but where is the money going to come from?

The County’s own analysis shows that the probable future capacity of the Coastside water, sewer, road, and school systems cannot support Supervisor Gordon’s development vision. But the Supervisors are forging ahead with this vision anyway—to the delight of their many developer/realtor friends.

I think we can all agree that the current road system cannot accommodate the current population, let alone any new development. We need to stop thinking that wider roads means more development as there other checks in place to keep growth from escalating.

Of course, reducing the number of cars and trucks during the commute crunch accomplishes an improvement in traffic flow without having to spend on destructive and grossly expensive road expansions that will eventually lead to more and worse traffic. Population growth in California has been and is stimulated by infrastructure expansion (inevitably with the promotion of growth by developers, the self-serving engagement in the growthg game by politicians and bureaucrats, and a mouth-breathing adherence to the growth ethic by the public).

There are no practical, working checks to keep development and population to sustainable levels. Infrastructure expansion is merely a way to get the public to subsidize development. When an area is already overdeveloped and unsustainable for the kinds of artificial activities going on in it, any growth is degrading, and the growth rate is simply a way of stating the rate at which things will get worse.

Anyone truly serious about wanting to make life on the midcoast better cannot avoid consideration of how to make the human population here sustainable. An increase in population, cars, and hardscaping and a decrease in finite natural resources and ecosystem services—and infrastructure expansion to serve these life-and-environment-worsening increases and decreases on the midcoast—can only make the place worse than the unsustainable situation it already is. One cannot clean up by making more of a mess. Smart shrinkage of the midcoast population is the sensible course for the future, and even those who only see the world through the headlights of their jammed-together autos would get better lives along with everyone else.

Carl May

The reality is that it is very unlikely the population of this state, let alone our community will be reduced. We obviously need to think of where our current needs are lacking (and at dangerous levels at the moment) and be smart on how the upgrades are planned. And this has been done in many coastal areas (we are not unique).

The fact that those who wish to make the midcoast worse through more overdevelopment and population growth are here to stay does not create a need to help them with infrastructure expansion. That only facilitates and accelerates their life-wrecking activities.

Carl May