As you may remember, though, when the Board approved the massive Rancho San Juan project, and concerned voters qualified a referendum, the Board worked liked crazy to head off the election, and approved an “alternative” Rancho San Juan project on the day before the referendum election on the original project. The voters rejected the original Rancho San Juan project the next day, with 75% of the voters stating their opposition. However, since the Board had already approved another version of Rancho San Juan, opponents then had to qualify a second referendum. Which they did!

All this goes to show that most members of the Monterey County Board of Supervisors (Supervisor Potter being the exception) are much more dedicated to making sure that developers get their projects approved than to finding out what the voters want. If the Board exhibits the same kind of behavior on the Community General Plan Initiative, it may simply refuse to let the voters have their say. If the Board does that (which would be wrong) then the voters will have to sue the Board for the right to vote. Check the KUSP website to find out how you can get more details.

For KUSP, this is Gary Patton.

More Information

The KUSP Land Use Report is pre-recorded, and the agenda for the February 28, 2006 meeting of the Monterey County Board of Supervisors was not available at the time this Land Use Report was prepared. To get more details about tomorrow’s Board meeting, including the Board’s consideration of the General Plan Initiative, visit the following website:
http://www.co.monterey.ca.us/cttb/agenda.htm.

Last week, at the February 21, 2006 meeting, the Board met in a “closed session” with the County Counsel, to discuss the initiative, and to seek legal advice. Developers and initiative opponents have been urging the Board to refuse to put the initiative on the June ballot, and if the Board does refuse, the sponsors of the initiative will be forced to take the County to court, to get the Courts to enforce their Constitutional rights. The California Constitution does guarantee the people the right to bring matters to a direct public vote, which really happens only when their elected officials aren’t responding appropriately to what the public wants. But the elected officials usually don’t like the voters to override them, and this is definitely the case in Monterey County (as the Rancho San Juan example shows so graphically). The decision on February 28th will be an important and interesting one!

The Coalition for Limiting University Expansion (CLUE for short) is a citizens’ group focusing on the expansion plans of the University of California at Santa Cruz, with specific reference to the kind of adverse community and environmental impacts that these expansion plans might have.

CLUE is operating at a disadvantage. It’s not easy to get the University of California to pay attention to what the public may want. City and County governments are ultimately responsible to the voters (as discussed yesterday in the context of the Monterey County Board of Supervisors’ actions on the Community General Plan Initiative). The University of California, however, is not accountable to the voters, and their actions at the UCSC campus are insulated by the California Constitution from any direct voter or local government control.

The University does have to follow the provisions of state and federal law, and CLUE thinks that UCSC isn’t doing that. Specifically, CLUE has recently filed what is called a “60-day Notice,” alleging significant violations of the Federal Clean Water Act. Under federal law, citizens do have the right to sue, to enforce environmental standards, but they have to give notice first, presumably to let the alleged violator either demonstrate that what they are doing is in fact legal, or to modify what they’re doing, to avoid the lawsuit.

For KUSP, this is Gary Patton.

More Information

The CLUE Website
http://santacruzclue.org/nk/html/

A 60-day Notice was filed by CLUE on February 14, 2006, alleging the unlawful discharge of pollutants from the UCSC Campus into campus storm drains, and to area surface waters, including Wilder Creek, Cave Gulch, Moore Creek, Jordan Gulch, the San Lorenzo River, and ultimately the Monterey Bay and the Monterey Bay Marine Sanctuary. Building contractor Devcon is also named in the 60-day Notice. For more information contact Don Stevens, CLUE Executive Director, at 831-425-4721, or contact CLUE by email at .

Putting up a freeway interchange certainly affects the immediately surrounding area. However, if the interchange also has the effect of opening up new lands for subdivisions, that single infrastructure investment can spawn literally miles of new sprawl. And in fact, this is how our natural and agricultural lands have been lost. Highways have been the prime offender against good planning, but ill-advised sewer expansions, or water supply facilities, have exactly the same result.

To do it right, planning must precede infrastructure investment. We should only invest our scarce infrastructure dollars in projects that support and carry out our planning objectives. That just makes sense, but it’s hardly ever done that way.

The Governor (and legislative leaders) are proposing that the people of California borrow billions of dollars to invest in new infrastructure projects. But the proposals are not tied to the state’s officially-adopted land use policies. Officially, the state wants to encourage “infill,” but the infrastructure bond proposals now being discussed in Sacramento don’t actually carry through. They would result in massive future indebtedness and more destructive sprawl; more air pollution; more traffic congestion; and little attention to the economically disadvantaged communities that really do need investments.

For KUSP, this is Gary Patton.

More Information

Current state law [Government Code Section 65041.1(c)] specifically requires the state to ensure that “any infrastructure associated with development…does all of the following:

1. Uses land efficiently.
2. Is built adjacent to existing developed areas ….
3. Is located in an area appropriately planned for growth.
4. Is served by adequate transportation and other essential utilities and services.
5. Minimizes ongoing costs to taxpayers.”

This should mean that all bond funds for infrastructure must be spent only in ways that are consistent with the state’s “smart growth” requirements, so that new infrastructure projects do not stimulate continued uneconomic and environmentally-damaging sprawl development. The proposed infrastructure bond measures now being discussed in the State Capitol are complex, as you might imagine. If you are interested in receiving some detailed information on these proposals, please contact me at . I’ll email you information that should prove informative.

Unfortunately, I am often able to give you only a day’s notice, or even only an hour’s notice, of some pretty important meetings. Today, though, I can give you the kind of advance notice about an event that might actually make it possible for you to attend. I can do that because I am personally involved in planning for this event, the 2006 Planning and Conservation League Environmental and Legislative Symposium.

The PCL Symposium is a statewide gathering, which will be held in Sacramento on Saturday, April 29th. PCL is, above all, a “League” of local groups that work on planning and conservation issues. The Symposium (historically held each year in the State Capitol) is where those most interested in and involved in every aspect of this environmental work find out about, and help develop, strategies to protect and preserve the California environment. In an election year, we hear from the statewide candidates, so we are expecting people like Phil Angelides, Steve Westly, Jerry Brown, and even Governor Schwarzenegger, to make an appearance. What is always most important though, is the strategic work we do together.

The theme of this year’s Symposium is “A Change in The Climate,” focusing not only on the key global warming issues we confront, but on how we plan to change the “political climate” throughout this state.

For KUSP, this is Gary Patton.

More Information

PCL Website
http://www.pcl.org

If you would like specific information on the Symposium, please don’t hesitate to contact me directly at my PCL email address - .

Since land use policy making largely takes place at indoor meetings, most of the “participation opportunities” I advertise don’t do much in the way of getting you out into the environment itself. As an antidote to that, I do try to let you know about various outings, and I periodically remind you that the Big Sur Land Trust has an active volunteer program. Within the Central Coast Region, there is no more spectacular place than Big Sur, and if you haven’t spent some time on that part of the California coast, I would like to encourage you to rectify that oversight!

On the KUSP website, I direct you to some upcoming volunteer opportunities in Big Sur, but let me elaborate a bit here. The Big Sur  Land Trust is working with the California Department of Parks and Recreation to restore and revegetate the Carmel River Lagoon. Wetland restoration is the return of a degraded wetland to its naturally functioning condition, and a healthy wetland environment is critically important for water quality and wildlife habitat. The Big Sur Land Trust will mobilize volunteers to do new plantings on Saturday March 11th, Saturday April 8th, and Saturday April 29th. You can be a “broom sweeper,” weeding out invasive plants, on Sunday March 19th, Saturday April 1st, and Saturday May 6th.

Call the Big Sur Land Trust at 831-625-5523 to volunteer.

For KUSP, this is Gary Patton.

More Information

Big Sur Land Trust
http://www.bigsurlandtrust.org/

Volunteer Opportunities
http://www.bigsurlandtrust.org/index1.html

To volunteer, contact the Big Sur Land Trust at 831-625-5523.