My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Browse
Search
AgdaPkt 2002-07-15
RedwoodCity
>
City Clerk
>
Agenda Packets
>
2000-2009 partial
>
2002
>
AgdaPkt 2002-07-15
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/5/2005 2:53:38 PM
Creation date
7/11/2002 1:53:50 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CC Index
CC Index - Document Type
Agenda Packet
Agency Type
City Council
Date
7/15/2002
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
180
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
LAND USE from page 1 .............................................. <br /> The League's Testimony pace of development, they are clearly not reluctant to <br /> go to the local ballot. The option of the state initiative <br /> The League was asked to respond to a committee <br /> is there as well. Therefore, it Js better to expand the <br /> staff report proposing various scenarios ranging from a <br /> somewhat disparaged '*status quo" option to the option public dialogue on growth rather than suppress it. <br /> of enhanced state control. In written comments and <br /> Understand how LAFCO's already regulate <br /> testimony, the League made the following points: growth. [:or cities, LA{:CO% operate as a growth <br /> The state has no comprehensive plan. individual regulation agency; their role is to limit sprawl and <br /> state agencies with individual plans are uncoordinated, promote orderly development. Cities cannot incorpo- <br /> rate, annex Jand, or add land to a sphere of influence <br /> inconsistent, and result in agencies working at cross- <br /> without complying with over 150 pages of statute, plus <br /> purposes as opposed to working toward a common goal. local agency guidelines. For almost 40 years, LAFCO's <br /> The state needs to establish a long-term plan and have have been empowered by the state to regulate city and <br /> the discipline to follow through on the plan. special district boundaries, and those laws just went <br /> The conference committee needs to recognize through a comprehensive revision based upon the two- <br /> that California's population growth dwarfs most year work of the Hertzberg Commission, culminating <br /> in the passage of AB ;)838 (Hertzberg, ;)000). <br /> other states. While land use policies in Oregon, <br />Colorado, Maryland and Pennsylvania are often touted as <br />models of land use practices superior to California, Local governments need resources to meet the <br />population growth in California increases more in one demands of growth. If the intent is to "build up, not <br /> out", then local communities need financing mecha- <br />year than most other states will in ten. No matter what <br />policies the state enacts, our new residents will need tonisms to support that approach. Under the existing <br />live somewhere, and will impose significant demands system of state-local finance, city governments are <br />on infrastructure, available land, natural resources and forced to use mismatched revenue sources and strate- <br />services, gies to provide services for their residents. For <br /> example, housing development is often a losing propo- <br />Respect the concept of local control. We do sition for many city budgets, further compounded by <br />not believe that local control of land use is a concept state law that gives nonprofit housing providers <br />that California's residents desire to surrender to the blanket exemptions from paying local property tax. <br />state. We would contend that our residents reject land Cities may pursue retail sales tax dollars to fund local <br />use decisions that affect their neighborhoods and service needs, but the use of this revenue to balance <br />communities that are being made at more remote levels local budgets alters planning priorities. Cities also lack <br />of government, reliable funding to repair and upgrade local infrastruc- <br /> ture, causing city parks, streets, sidewalks, sewers, <br />Engage the state's residents in the discussion and water pipes to deteriorate. Meanwhile, the <br />of growth. Between 1986 and 2000, 671 local land use suburban fringes are booming with wide, landscaped <br />measures were put on ballots in California, 61 on the boulevards, new parks and recreation facilities funded <br />November 2000 ballot alone. In that election, 60 by high developer fees, and infrastructure financing <br />percent of the California electorate voted for limited mechanisms such as the Mello-Roos autl~ority, which <br />growth. The driving force behind these initiatives is favors the development of raw land. <br />existing homeowners concerns over infrastructure, <br /> The next meeting of the Conference Committee <br />traffic, noise, overcrowded schools, lack of parks and <br />open space, and what they view as a declining quality has not yet been set. <br />of life. When local residents are frustrated with the <br /> <br />PAGE 6/PRIORITY FOCUS Visit the League's Official Web Site--www.cacities.org <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.