Time for Action on the Solano General Plan

By Nicole Byrd, Solano - Napa Field Representative, Greenbelt Alliance

The Board of Supervisors will hold their first public hearing on the General Plan next week. Our community needs to show up in full force to let the Supervisors know that we want a plan that makes our quality of life better, not worse. Unfortunately, the proposed plan will drastically change Solano County for the worse! The plan could result in paving over as much as 30,000 acres of farmland – that’s more than the size of Fairfield. Implementing this plan will further deteriorate our air quality, and we already have the worst asthma in the state. Traffic will get much worse than it is and we could face water shortages. Please come to the public hearing and tell the Board that we want a plan that makes our community stronger, healthier and safer.

The first hearings are set for Tuesday, July 1, 2008 from 3:00 pm - 5:00 pm and 6:30 pm - 9:00 pm. Come to either time that works for you.

Additionally, the board will be holding a public hearing on the Environmental Impact Report on Tuesday, July 22, 2008 – 2:00 p.m. Please also put this date on your calendar.

[See list below of additional hearings, agendas, and supporting documents.]

There are many aspects of this General Plan to be concerned about. I’ve included some points of concern below. Please feel free to address these in your comments, or bring up other issues.

POINTS OF CONCERN:

Health
--Developing more of our county land will increase traffic and make our air quality even worse.

Water
--The Draft Plan does very little to acknowledge Solano County’s water supply problems. More work needs to be done to ensure that development in the unincorporated areas will have a sufficient water supply.

Growth Concerns
--The land use diagram shows a significant increase in development in the unincorporated County over existing conditions. Why is the county growing right up against the cities’ limits?
--The extension of the Orderly Growth Initiative should be a part of any ballot measure put forth to the voters.
--Package sewage treatment plants are a bad idea (perhaps they may be ok for certain agricultural operations but not for residential subdivisions). These sewage plants will have growth-inducing impacts on agricultural lands.
--The Cities of Vacaville and Dixon have expressed concern about the plan. How can this be a good plan for the County if the Cities don’t like it? I hope that the County will work with the Cities to resolve their issues.

Community Separators
--The 2008 Draft Solano County General Plan discusses five existing Community Separators but only maps the Tri-City and County Area. More work needs to be done in regard to protecting and expanding the community separators, including mapping all of them on the land use plan. For example, the Vallejo-Benicia Separator is discussed but there are no policies to strengthen this separator nor is it mapped on the Land Use diagram.

Special Study Areas
--The GP sets up four Special Study Areas - Collinsvillle, Middle Green Valley, Old Town Cordelia, and Suisun Valley. It looks like these areas will be studied further later, but the issues should be resolved now.
--The Middle Green Valley Special Study Area sets up this area for growth.
The plan does not deal with the water issues related to growth in this area.
The plan promotes 400 new houses in Middle Green Valley which is inconsistent with the city-centered growth model that the plan says it should follow.
The plan does not deal with the traffic issues that will be created by growth in this area.

Climate change/ greenhouse gas emissions
--The plan addresses this as a mere afterthought. They did such a poor job on this that the Attorney General has asked the County to put some real protections in place.
--We know that transportation is a major source of greenhouse gases. The car – dependent rural residential growth recommended by the General Plan update will make the problem worse!

Biological Resources
--The General Plan should be consistent with the proposed Habitat Conservation Plan.

Misc
--Why is this process being rushed to get the land use changes on the November ballot? We should be focusing on creating a plan that represents our community.

If you have additional questions, please contact:
Nicole Byrd, Solano - Napa Field Representative, Greenbelt Alliance, 1652 West Texas St. Suite 163, Fairfield, CA 94533, phone: (707) 427-2308
-------------------------------------------------------------

Public Hearings on the 2008 Draft General Plan

http://www.solanocountygeneralplan.net/
Click on the links below for agendas and supporting documents

July 1, 2008
9:00 a.m. - 12:00 p.m. Staff Presentation
2:00 p.m. - 3:00 p.m. City Comments
3:00 p.m. - 5:00 p.m. Public Hearing
6:30 p.m. - 9:00 p.m. Public Hearing

Board of Supervisors Chambers
675 Texas Street, 1st Floor
Fairfield CA, 94533

For more information, see here.

Additional Public Hearings:
July 8, 2008
July 18, 2008
July 21, 2008
July 22, 2008
July 29, 2008

Find a new plan

by Bob Berman
Benicia

In July, the Solano County Board of Supervisors will consider the adoption of Solano County's new General Plan.

I recently reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the county's new General Plan and was astonished to find that it will result in 27 individual significant unavoidable adverse impacts. This means that of the impacts discussed in the EIR 27 will result in significant unavoidable damage to Solano County's environment. These impacts cover a wide variety of areas including land use, air quality, noise, transportation, hydrology, agricultural land, public services, cultural resources, aesthetics, and climate change. Pretty much everything that makes up the precious Solano County environment that we all would like to protect.

For example, according to the EIR new development as proposed in the General Plan will:

• Result in the generation of air pollutant emissions beyond established standards.

• Result in a significant increase in noise along county roadways.

• Result in a significant increase in traffic congestion - 27 different locations where traffic will be unacceptable are identified, including, of course, on Interstate 80, I-680, Lake Herman Road, and Curtola Parkway.

• Result in the conversion of nearly 22,000 acres of farmland to urban uses.

• Result in damage to scenic vistas and resources.

And there is more - there will not be adequate water to serve all of the projected development. New methods to obtain water and additional sources of water will be required.

This is not the future that I envision for Solano County.

I urge all Solano County residents to contact individual members of the board of supervisors and tell them it is time to stop the new General Plan and go back to develop a plan that protects, not destroys, Solano County's environment.

Note: To contact the Board, Click HERE, or email:
Michael Reagan mjreagan@solanocounty.com
Jim Spering jpspering@solanocounty.com
John Vasquez jmvasquez@solanocounty.com
Barbara Kondylis bkondylis@solanocounty.com
John Silva jfsilva@solanocounty.com

Environmental Leaders Call Supervisor John Silva A Liar

Fairfield—Local environmental leaders expressed outrage today at a campaign mail piece sent to voters by Solano County Supervisor John Silva, who is currently seeking re-election. The mailer was sent to households throughout the 2nd Supervisorial District of Solano County, which includes Benicia, parts of Vallejo, Green Valley and Cordelia. The mailer asserts that "John Silva has a strong record on the environment." It also attempts to discredit his opponent Linda Seifert, and falsely portrays her as being overly pro-development.

Former Solano County Supervisor Duane Kromm takes Silva to task for the falsehoods peddled in his mailer.

“I served with John on the board of Supervisors for eight years. It is sad to watch a career politician lose focus and try to portray himself as something that he isn’t. I respect someone who has different goals and vision, and stands on them. When John now tries to become the environmentalist it is just pathetic. He isn’t an environmentalist and never has been. He simply lost sight of what is important to his District and is now trying to convince people that the developer’s friend has put on a green coat” explained Duane Kromm, former Solano County Supervisors from district 3.

"The only green John knows," continues Kromm, "is from the dollars developers and speculators are investing in his campaign," a reference to the over 25,000 dollars in campaign contributions Silva has taken from land developers like Albert Seeno.

Local Sierra Club president Jim DeKloe also takes offense at John Silva's portrayal of himself as an environmentalist. "It is a sad day when the anti-environment candidate puts out a mailer that inaccurately paints him as pro-environment," DeKloe says. "John Silva has opposed our efforts to create a Regional Park system with protected areas and hiking trails. John Silva stated during a Board of Supervisors meeting that he does not think global warming is a serious problem. John Silva supported the expansion of the garbage dump into environmentally sensitive marsh areas. John Silva is trying to open up 30,000 acres of county land (an area larger than the City of Fairfield) for development. If John Silva is an environmentalist, Donald Trump is modest."

The Solano County Orderly Growth Committee's Jack Batson is equally critical of Silva's claims.

"John would have you believe black is white and white is black," says Batson. "It is reasonable to disagree on issues and have policy debates, but this is outrageous. Obviously, he is ashamed of his real record, and therefore has no choice but to invent lies and distortions."

John Silva will face challenger Linda Seifert in the June 3rd election.

Supervisor's Coup

by Will Gregory, Benicia

In endorsing Linda Seifert for Solano County Supervisor, the Solano County Orderly Growth Committee stated: " Our County’s General Plan, which protects open space and manages sensible growth, is being updated by the Board of Supervisors, ...In order to ensure that we have a new General Plan which both conserves Solano County’s miles of rural land and focuses balanced, sustainable growth within our seven cities, we need a supervisor who will stand up for our environment, not rampant rural development by special interests."

Special to the( Benicia) Herald- 4/3/2008.
In contrast, over the past couple months, I’ve been able to show the community that Supervisor John Silva is well tied to developers and real estate entities by reading, researching and writing about his campaign disclosure statements: Public Documents- Form#460. Secured at the Voters of Registrar office at the County Government building in Fairfield. These files are extremely important because they give the citizen/voter a rare glimpse into the mind-set of our elected officials. Another way to find out how a public official is doing- is to check his voting record.

One issue in particular that caught my attention was the Solano County’s General Plan/ selection process for the Citizen’s Advisory Committee.

This 16 member group was selected by the BOS to update and enhance a document that hadn’t been revised in over 20 years.

Two original members of this group were (then) Benicia Planning Commissioner Bonnie Silveria and (then) councilwoman Elizabeth Patterson.

A letter written by Nicole Byrd of the Greenbelt Alliance and (7) members of the original and second CAC team to the Vallejo Times Herald- 3/15/08- is instructive:

"...the original Citizen’s Advisory Committee (CAC), a well balanced committee consisting of four people appointed by each supervisor was disbanded in Jan.2007. The Supervisors claimed the committee wasn’t getting enough done. However, the original committee- like the second committee–followed agendas designed by consultants, with some input from an agenda sub-committee. Additionally, the original CAC was developing a vision plan and attending a number of field trips to various county locations in order to be better informed when making decisions. The criticism that the original CAC was not doing enough was a smokescreen by those who wanted an excuse to remake the committee."

When you check the Supervisors agenda schedule-what happened next is very revealing.

Here the Supervisors ( Chairman Michael Reagan, John Silva ) moved to send the CAC issue to the Ad Hoc- Land Use and Transportation Committee- See: BOS minutes of 1/09/08.
The senior member of this committee is Mr. Silva: who recommended that the original CAC committee be dissolved and a new CAC selection process be established.
Note: What is interesting is that, because it was "Ad Hoc" they didn’t have to have public meetings. See: BOS meeting 1/23/08. Agenda Item #21 of the Committee Report.

"The supervisors met in closed session, without public input or public viewing and hand picked the ...the new members for the second CAC." From: the above Greenbelt Alliance letter.

Where is the respect for the public process or open and transparent government, here?

Even more disturbing the # 3 item of the new Citizens Membership Report specifically states: The CAC shall not consist of individuals who in their present capacity make decisions dealing with land use such as elected officials and appointed officials. e.g. City Council-persons or Planning Commissioners will not be allowed to serve on the new CAC.
Note: the only two members of the original committee who were either elected or appointed were Ms. Patterson and Ms. Silveria.

In a 4-1 vote the second CAC was formed. Note: Supervisor Kondylis expressed her opposition to the restructuring of the CAC Membership for the Solano County General Plan Update and did not feel that there was equal geographic, gender, or ethnic representation in the new restructuring.

When you check Ms. Patterson’s resume at her web site ( See: elizabethpatterson.com) it is full of the kind of top notch experience that should’ve been a worthy asset to this citizens group. Ms. Silveria has held numerous positions in our city government-again experience is an invaluable tool on a citizens committee.
So why would Mr. Silva, the most senior politician from Benicia, deny his own home town (native son) representation on the CAC ?

It is important to remember: Benicia was the only city in Solano Co., that voted overwhelmingly in favor of Measure J in 2006. The initiative would have extended Solano Co. Orderly Growth law for another 30 years. ( the OG law requires a " vote of the people " on any major development of agricultural land. Since Measure J failed, the OG law will expire in 2010.)

The revised General Plan draft, that has been developed by the CAC ( from which Mr. Silva removed all Benicia representation), " proposes giving the county authority " to develop agricultural land, rather than keeping development within city boundaries.
Benicia and Dixon were the only cities in Solano County that don’t have representation on the CAC.

It is also important to note that Benicia was not included in cities selected to have an Open House to preview the General Plan update. Other Solano cities had open houses, which included a walk through of the document and a question and answer session with CAC members. Benicians were directed to the JFK Library in Vallejo April 28th to be part of this important process.

So Benicia went from having two highly qualified CAC members to zero representation.

Mr. Silva, had many chances to pick another person from our city–he chose – Mr. Anthony Russo from Fairfield, to represent District 2. Mr. Russo, I have learned, is the son-in-law of Mr. Billy Yarbrough who is a major land owner in Solano County. Mr. Yarbrough owns B&L Properties, a real estate development company.
Please note: According to Mr. Silva’s 2007 campaign disclosure statement- Debbe Russo gave $1,000 to his campaign. Louise Yarbrough donated $2500 to Mr. Silva. There was also a $667 non-monetary contribution from B&L Properties.

In closing, Supervisor Silva (the third most senior politician in the county) uses his considerable muscle in closed session –Ad Hoc Committee- to deny his " home town" of any kind of respectable representation on the most important advisory committee affecting our city/ county in the last twenty years!

So we have a public official who has ties to developers-like- Seeno Co. and other special interest groups- on the one hand- and then using his years of experience as a politician and legislative maneuvering to make sure that two of our city’s most known and experienced public officials are fired . See: Mayor Elizabeth Patterson’s e-alerts. Subject: Solano Farm lands at risk-Supervisors and the Solano County General Plan. 3-15-2008 – for her reaction.

With the June 3rd District 2 election just weeks away, it is important to remember- Mr. Silva hasn’t been challenged in over 12 years- I think it is fair to ask, do we really want another four years of this kind of representation?

What has Silva done for us?

Dear Editor:

What has Mr. Silva done for us in the past 11 years?

Health Issues: According to the State, as reported on the County website, Solano has the highest rate of asthma in California. Over my career as a middle school teacher in the County, I’ve watched the number of my students with asthma, increase alarmingly.

Air pollution is a well-known contributor to asthma problems. Recently, the Bay Area Air Quality District gave the County a grade of C (down from B) for summer air pollution and a grade of D for winter air pollution.

Concerning other health issues, a recent Study reported in the Fairfield Daily Republic found that our County ranks 9th for obesity and 6th for diabetes, among counties studied. The article suggested that this could be connected to the fact that we have five times more fast food/convenience places as grocery stores. A note here: some of these fast food/convenience places were built in the past 11 years.

Finally Mr. Silva voted to use tobacco money—NOT on health related issues—but, rather, to build new County buildings.

Transportation: Recently Mr. Silva has said he will work to repair our roads. Great! The problem, though, is that Mr. Silva was supposed to be ensuring that these roads were maintained over the past 11 years. Also, during those 11 years, nothing has been done to improve perhaps the biggest road problem in Mr.Silva’s District: the I-80/680 interchange.

Listening to Constituents: Mr. Silva’s home town is Benicia—yet he removed the only two Benicians who were on the General Plan Citizen’s Panel. In addition, the General Plan Public Outreach Forum—which visited five County locations—skipped Benicia.

Attempt to Raise Taxes: Mr. Silva attempted to raise taxes at least three times. In 2002, 2004 and 2006 he supported Measures E, A and H respectively. Each of these Measures would have increased our sales tax.

Open Space: Mr. Silva was the deciding vote against a Solano Regional Park System a few years back. In addition he opposed Urban Growth Boundary Measures in Benicia (Measure K) and Fairfield (Measure L).

Budget Balancing: Mr Silva claims he has balanced 11 budgets. Yes, the County has had a balanced budget for the past 11 years. The thing is, State law requires a balanced County budget. Therefore, the County’s budget will always be balanced—no matter who sits in the Supervisor chairs.

Crime/Attracting Jobs/Survey Results: Finally, the results of the County’s own Survey, released this month—report that Benicians and Vallejoans are less satisfied with the County than other County residents. Also, despite Mr. Silva’s 11 years in office, the Survey reported that Vallejoans feel the County is, according to the Vallejo Times Herald, “barely doing enough to address” youth crimes, chronic diseases and attracting businesses and jobs. Benicians were also concerned about youth crimes as well as, according to the Benicia Herald, County government organization and environmentally friendly land-use practices.

After 11 years in office, it does not matter what John Silva may say he will do—but what he has done.

Mr. Silva has had his chance. It’s time for someone new, like Linda Seifert.

Jon Van Landschoot
Benicia, CA

County's draft general plan deserves scrutiny

To: The Reporter Editor:
03/04/08 www.thereporter.com
submitted by Nicole Byrd, Fairfield.

After reading recent letters regarding the Solano County general plan update process, we felt that a few other points should be made about what occurred with the process during 2007.

First, let's not forget that the original Citizen's Advisory Committee, a well-balanced committee consisting of four people appointed by each supervisor, was disbanded shortly after Supervisor Jim Spering took office in 2007.

The supervisors claimed that the committee wasn't getting enough done; however, the original committee - as did the second committee - followed agendas designed by consultants, with some input from an agenda subcommittee.

Additionally, the original committee was developing a vision plan and attending a number of field trips to various county locations to be better informed when making decisions.

The criticism that the original committee was not doing enough was a "smoke screen" by those who wanted an excuse to remake the committee.

The board, chaired by Supervisor Mike Reagan, directed Supervisors Spering and John Silva as an "ad hoc subcommittee" to review the structure of the Citizens Advisory Committee.

Supervisors Spering and Silva met in closed session, without public input or public viewing, and hand-picked the vast majority of the new members for the second committee. Each supervisor was allowed only one appointment in addition to those selected by the subcommittee. This was a move to change the original, well-balanced committee and replace it with a more development-oriented group.
The timeline is another point of contention.

The committee was forced to make important decisions, often with insufficient data, just to meet the timeline. In fact, the timeline was clearly more important than careful study of the issues. Only Supervisor Barbara Kondylis has shown the wisdom to question this overly hasty process.

As members of both the original and second citizens advisory committees, we wanted the public to hear more of the story.

A new Solano County general plan is a critically important blueprint for how and where Solano will develop during the next 20 to 30 years. The new plan is quite different than the original plan and it deserves a thorough public airing and discussion.

We urge the county, in addition to the circulation of the general plan's Draft Environmental Impact Report for review and comments, to thoroughly and publicly present the draft general plan to solicit input from throughout the county and consider the concerns and comments expressed.

Nicole Byrd, Fairfield.
This letter also was signed by Patrica Gatz of Vallejo, Eva Laevastu of Green Valley and Benicia Mayor Elizabeth Patterson, all of whom, like Ms. Byrd, served on both the original 20-member and the second 16-member Citizens Advisory Committee; as well as original committee members Marti Brown of Vallejo, Jeanne McCormack of Rio Vista and Ian Anderson of Birds Landing.

What’s Wrong with the New General Plan?

By Gary Boudreaux
Green Valley Landowners Assn.

The Solano County Board of Supervisors is preparing a new general plan, setting forth principles to guide the evolution of the county in the coming 20 years. Unfortunately, there has been almost no direct citizen involvement in the creation of this plan, raising profound reasons for concern on the part of the average citizen.

So what's wrong with the county's new general plan?

• The proposed plan sets the stage for county-based development, even though our cities have provided effective jurisdiction over residential and commercial development since the county was established. (There is no obvious justification for this change, as the county shares in the fee revenues collected by the cities, and the county would not receive additional tax revenues after the costs of new services were paid.)

• The draft general plan is overly vague in its definitions or intent in utilizing lands within its newly created "municipal service areas," but it is clear that the county intends to encourage development in areas adjacent to existing cities, whether the cities want it or not. This will create poorly mitigated traffic, noise, diminished air quality, uncompensated use of city services, school crowding, and competition for utilities - all with no input from the affected cities.

• The proposed plan puts the county in competition with its cities for development, and interferes with cities' rights of self-determination and their established urban limit lines.

• The proposed general plan runs contrary to all well-known principles of smart or sustainable growth, in which development is planned in areas where there are existing services, not in scattered rural areas with no services or adjacent to municipalities where services must be duplicated.

• The notice of preparation for the plan's environmental impact report was issued before the draft plan was made available. It is obvious that the board is eager to get the plan completed and in front of the voters by Nov. 4 at any cost. The public comment period on the notice was to have expired Feb. 4.

• The proposed general plan clearly favors development interests and large landowners over long-term public interests. It fails to explain the justification for additional development in county areas. It especially fails to explain the general conversion of prime agricultural lands to residential development.

• The environmental impact report assessing the county's draft general plan is being prepared by the same company that was hired to write the general plan itself. How is it possible to objectively critique a work one has just written? Although permissible, the process smacks of conflict of interest and displays the single-minded urgency and profound lack of objectivity of the entire plan.

• County supervisors are establishing mutual sewer and water districts in rural areas to accommodate new developments, yet claim that these measures are not growth-inducing in and of themselves. These proposals, when written into our general plan, will radically and permanently alter rural Solano County.

• The proposed plan sets the stage for future rural land use designation changes by failing to establish concrete measures ensuring the protection of agriculture, habitat or open space. It addresses these critical concerns with vague platitudes.

• The rural character of Solano County is likely to be lost forever. Without public outcry, Solano County will go the way of Sacramento, San Mateo and Santa Clara counties.

The coming Solano County general plan is a plain and simple land grab and opens the door to unprecedented development, inevitably turning Solano County into an overpopulated, densely developed, urban cityscape. Our Board of Supervisors has no business developing the county in ways that are unsustainable by our infrastructure and our natural resources.

What can the average person do?

They can voice their opinions in writing to the Board of Supervisors.

They can vote against the acceptance of the general plan. Vote for those who care about our county heritage and the future of our county as we enjoy it today.

They can attend the Board of Supervisor meetings and speak out against the wholesale unbalanced sellout of Solano County to development interests.

Our children, and their children, deserve no less.

________________________________________________

Information about the general plan and the process for adopting it can be found online at http://solanocountygeneralplan.net/
_______________________________________________

Suburban sprawl: a costly, inefficient way to build a community

by Will Gregory
Jan. 23, 2008

"Sprawling suburbs are arguably the most economically, environmentally, and socially costly pattern of residential development humans have ever devised."
From Urban Sprawl to Sustainable Human Communities
Mark Roseland and William Rees

" Walking in Benicia’s downtown helps me keep a promise. I want to see the world in green, or walk more gently in the world and prevent further irreversible damage to the planet.’
Benicia Mayor- Elizabeth Patterson

" They paved paradise and put up a parking lot."
Singer,song-writer, Joni Mitchell

Recently, out of curiosity I was going over the final thoughts and comments on the elizabethformayor.com web site. I read an interesting note from Councilman Tom Butt from Richmond. He mentioned smart growth and something called the Ahwanhee Principles. Being the curious type, I looked it up. I thought it might be interesting to share this data with the community.

But first I wanted to comment on this idea that mayor Patterson brought up on Dec.4th in the council chambers." Patterson addressed‘ fears’ that she was ‘a zealot tree hugging conservationist,’ by saying that she is zealous about the environment and has a vision of Benicia becoming the green gate to Solano County." (Benicia Herald- "New city council takes over" 12/6/07)

One of the biggest myths is that environmental protection hurts the economy. It doesn’t take much research to prove this wrong.

Massachusetts Institute of Technology professor Stephen Meyer posed the question : Does environmental protection and regulation hinder economic growth, job creation, and overall production, as some business groups maintain?

He evaluated and ranked the 50 states based on two sets of criteria: Economic prosperity (gross domestic product, total employment, and productivity); and breadth and depth of environmental programs. Meyers found that:

* States with stronger environmental policies consistently out-perform the weaker environmental states on all economic measures.
* the pursuit of environmental quality does not hinder economic growth and development.
* there appears to be moderate, yet consistent, positive association between environmentalism and economic growth; and
* there is no evidence that relaxing environmental standards will produce economic growth.

Mayor Patterson idea of a green gate to Solano County is buttressed by another study- by the Institute of Southern Studies- Briefly stated: " The states that do the most to protect their natural resources also wind up with the strongest economies and the best jobs for their citizens."
(Source: Better not Bigger: How to Take Control of Urban Growth and Improve Your Community. Eben Fodor. 2001.)

It would seem that Mayor Patterson has her hand firmly on the- environmental stewardship- rudder and is steering the community in the right direction.

With Solano County in the process of updating its General Plan and with counties like Marin and Ventura adopting the Ahwanhee Principles- I thought it might be of interest to community members to know about these innovative ideas. ( Note: there are no members of the Solano County GP Committee from Benicia ?)

The Ahwahnee Principles for Resource-efficient Communities were presented in 1991 at the Ahwahnee Hotel in Yosemite National Park and written by members of the Local Government Commission. ( Excellent site: http://www.lgc.org/ )

These principles provide a blueprint for elected officials to create compact, mixed use, walkable transit oriented development in local communities; cities and counties across the nation have adopted them to break the cycle of sprawl.

Community Principles:
1. All planning should be in the form of complete and integrated communities containing housing, shops, work places, schools, parks and civic facilities essential to the daily life of residents.
2. Community size should be designed so that housing, jobs, daily needs and other activities are within easy walking distance of each other.
3. As many activities as possible should be located within easy walking distance of transit shops.
4. A community should contain a diversity of housing types to enable citizens from a wide range of economic levels and age groups to live within its boundaries.
5. Businesses within the community should provide a range of job types for the communities residents.
6. The location and character of the community should be consistent with a larger transit network.
7. The community should have a center focus that combines commercial, civic, cultural and recreational uses.
8. The community should contain an ample supply of specialized open space in the form of squares, greens, and parks whose frequent use is encouraged through placement and design.
9. Public spaces should be be designed to encourage the attention and presence of people at all hours of the day and night.
10. Each community or cluster of communities should have a well defined edge, such as agricultural greenbelts or wildlife corridors, permanently protected from development.
11. Streets, pedestrian paths and bike paths should contribute to a system of fully-connected and interesting routes to all destinations. Their design should encourage pedestrian and bicycle use by being small and spatially defined by buildings, trees, and lighting; and by discouraging high speed traffic.
12. Wherever possible, the natural terrain, drainage and vegetation of the community should be preserved with superior examples contained within parks or greenbelts.
13. The community design should help conserve resources and minimize waste.
14. Communities should provide for the efficient use of water through the use of natural drainage, drought tolerant landscaping and recycling.
15. The street orientation, the placement of buildings and the use of shading should contribute to energy efficiency of the community.

Finally, the late Jane Jacobs in her book -"The Death and Life of Great American Cities"(1961) sums it up best if we don’t control sprawl and excessive growth.

" Traffic arteries, along with parking lots and filling stations, are powerful and insistent instruments of city destruction. To accommodate them, city streets are broken down into loose sprawls, incoherent and vacuous for anyone afoot. Downtowns and other neighborhoods that were marvels of close grained intricacy and compact mutual support are casually disemboweled. Landmarks are crumbled or are so sundered from their contexts in city life as to become irrelevant trivialities. City character is blurred until every place becomes like every other place, all adding up to Noplace."