“Development pressure” is the economic pressure to transform the current use of land into something that increases its value. That pressure is experienced, above all, by landowners, who are constantly reminded that they can make a lot of money if they find a way to “develop” their land.

Agricultural and open space land is worth ten times as much per acre, if it can be used for a shopping center or subdivision. When the possible economic gains are this great, our capitalist credo “pressures” those who own the land to realize these economic gains. That’s why “farmers” (really agricultural land owners), fight against any policy proposal that would limit the uses of their prime farmland. It’s also why St. John’s College, a wonderful liberal arts educational institution, seriously considered converting the Marks Ranch, in Monterey County, into a massive subdivision.

The same Marks family that donated the land for the Nisene Marks State Park in Santa Cruz County gave the Marks Ranch to St. John’s to preserve its natural qualities. St. John’s trustees, however, who felt the need to raise money to meet their educational mission, did actually sign a contract, at one point, giving up the land for development. Citizen action, led by LandWatch Monterey County, resulted in a different outcome, and if you’d like to visit the Marks Ranch, now preserved, check out the the links below. I’ll tell you how.

For KUSP, this is Gary Patton.

More Information

St. John’s College Website
http://www.stjohnscollege.edu/asp/home.aspx

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

BSLT Spring Outings Schedule
http://www.bigsurlandtrust.org/index1.html

St. John’s College signed a contract with a developer, allowing the Marks Ranch to be converted into a massive residential subdivision. However, when citizen action efforts, led by LandWatch Monterey County, made clear how much the public wanted to preserve Marks Ranch, the St. John’s trustees began working with the Big Sur Land Trust. Happily, these efforts led to a “win-win” result, and the Marks Ranch has been saved from development by purchase by the Big Sur Land Trust. Ultimately, the Marks Ranch property may be owned by either Monterey County or by some other public agency, but for the time being its spectacular resources will be protected and preserved under the stewardship of the Big Sur Land Trust. The Big Sur Land Trust will conduct hikes onto the Marks Ranch property on June 24th and July 29th. Land Trust Members are invited. You can get the details on the Big Sur Land Trust website, or by calling 831-625-5523, Ext. 1.

Air pollution, energy consumption, and water quality degradation are all negative environmental impacts. So are the loss of farmland, wildlife habitat, and the release of greenhouse gases. Long commutes, leading to decreasing community coherence and family breakdown, are also negative impacts, perhaps more “social” than “environmental.” Growing obesity and associated public health problems are some more “negative” impacts. All of these negatives impacts are associated with our current patterns of land use, patterns that are perpetuating themselves, and accelerating.

There is a “metric” by which such “dumb growth” patterns of land use can be measured. It’s called “VMT,” or “Vehicle Miles Traveled.” Good land use patterns minimize VMT. Dumb growth land use patterns increase VMT.

In 1994, U.S. residential vehicles traveled 1.8 trillion miles, 282 billion miles more than in 1988. From 1988 to 1994, the average annual growth in VMT was 2.9 percent, almost 3 times the rate of growth in the number of residential vehicles. These trends continue. Cutting back on VMT is an officially adopted part of federal transportation policy, but we’re not really achieving the objectives. I’ll talk more about this tomorrow, with information on what’s happening in Sacramento.

For KUSP, this is Gary Patton.

More Information

VMT on the web

Energy Information Administration
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/rtecs/chapter3.html

US Department of Transportation
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ohim/epastat.htm

Serious efforts are being made in Sacramento to make “VMT,” or “Vehicle Miles Traveled,” the “metric” by which various land use and transportation decisions are tested. Land use patterns that minimize VMT will produce much better results from an economic, social equity, and environmental perspective than will land use patterns that allow VMT to continue to grow. Here are a couple of statistics that will let you understand the scale of what’s at stake. If California were able to achieve a 10% reduction of VMT per household, just counting the four major metropolitan regions, that would be equivalent to:

• Removing 250 tons of smog from our air each day (Equivalent to eliminating all smog in 2005 from electric utilities, petroleum refining, oil and gas production and all waste disposal)

• Reducing 230,000,000 tons of CO2 emissions; and

• Conserving 24,000,000,000 gallons of gasoline (Equivalent to taking every car and truck off the California roads for 1.5 years)

Senate Bill 375, authored by Senator Darrell Steinberg, just passed the Senate a couple of weeks ago. It would try to tie all transportation funding in the state to the actual achievement of VMT reductions. There is more information below.

For KUSP, this is Gary Patton.

More Information

Legislative Information
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/

Senate Bill 375
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/postquery?
bill_number=sb_375&sess=CUR&house=
B&author=steinberg

Original Version
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/07-08/bill/
sen/sb_0351-0400/sb_375_bill_20070417
_amended_sen_v98.html

Current Version
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/07-08/bill/
sen/sb_0351-0400/sb_375_bill_20070604
_amended_sen_v96.html

Senate Bill 375 started off as a bill that directly tied transportation funding to a plan to reduce “VMT,” or “Vehicle Miles Traveled.” This VMT “metric” has been modified, and the bill now proposes that transportation funding be linked to the achievement of the AB 32 goals set by the State Air Resources Board.

AB 32 was enacted last year, and is called the “Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006.” In fact, AB 32 doesn’t propose any specific solutions at all. Instead, it represents a solemn commitment by the people of this state that we will reduce our global warming emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2020. That’s a mammoth job, and everyone who has studied the issue knows that we can’t make good on our AB 32 promises without a fundamental change in our land use policies, and in the pattern of growth and development that we currently follow.

That current pattern of land use and development can best be characterized as “sprawl.” It results from lots of individual decisions, added up, as each individual property owner seeks to maximize his or her individual economic position. The effort in Sacramento, this year, is to find a way to do it better. As you might guess, that’s not going to be easy. The list of those opposing SB 375 is a who’s who of the development industry.

For KUSP, this is Gary Patton.

More Information

Legislative Information
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/

Senate Bill 375
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/postquery?
bill_number=sb_375&sess=CUR&house=
B&author=steinberg

Original Version
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/07-08/bill/
sen/sb_0351-0400/sb_375_bill_20070417
_amended_sen_v98.html

Current Version
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/07-08/bill/
sen/sb_0351-0400/sb_375_bill_20070604
_amended_sen_v96.html

The City of Santa Cruz recently approved a major development project. The site for the development is located along Branciforte Road / Market Street, right where Goss Avenue comes down the hill from Branciforte Avenue. Sometimes, Eastside residents come through this intersection and take Isabel Drive, through the Carbonero housing development, as a shortcut to Highway 17. The large field where the development is proposed is immediately adjacent to Highway One, and to Branciforte Creek. It’s also home to a federally protected plant species, the spineflower.

In approving a 39-unit housing development on the site, the Santa Cruz City Council provided a 30-60 foot buffer between the new housing and the plant habitat. The US Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Conservation Biology Institute, said that an 80-100 foot buffer was required. The local chapter of the California Native Plant Society (often called CNPS) has now stepped forward, asking for court review.

CNPS is one of the most thoughtful and well-prepared environmental organizations operating in the State of California, and the Santa Cruz County and Monterey County Chapters both do outstanding work on behalf of the environment. If you’d like to find out more about CNPS, why not attend their picnic, tomorrow, at Toro Park? There’s more information below.

For KUSP, this is Gary Patton.

More Information

For more information on the Chuck Haugen Picnic (tomorrow at Toro Park in Monterey County) go to www.chuckhaugenconservationfund.org. You can also call 831-384-1376 or email pedropratt@gmail.com.