Mark your calendars for two public information sessions to be held this coming Wednesday, on plans to remove the San Clemente Dam, which is located on the Carmel River, in Monterey County. The State Coastal Conservancy, the National Marine Fisheries Service, the Planning and Conservation League Foundation, and California American Water Company have all been engaged, in different ways, in developing a proposal to remove the San Clemente Dam. Not to mention the State Department of Water Resources, which has issued an order demanding that dam safety problems be eliminated!

Successful dam removal projects are few and far between. If it’s possible to pull this project off, it will be a truly historic accomplishment, and will lead to a much better environment for fish and other living things. Probably a better environment for people, too, since new recreational opportunities are a likely outcome of the proposed project. Both the Big Sur Land Trust and the Monterey Peninsula Regional Park District have been closely following the progress of this project.

The first meeting on Wednesday will be held from 1:30 p.m. to 3:00 p.m. at the Hidden Valley Institute of the Performing Arts, at the corner of Carmel Valley and Ford Roads. A second meeting will be held from 7:00 p.m. to 8:30 p.m. at the Mission Ranch Resort, 26270 Dolores Street in Carmel. As usual, there is more information on the KUSP website.

For KUSP, this is Gary Patton.

More Information

PCL Foundation Website
http://www.pclfoundation.org/

PCLF Fact Sheet
http://www.pclfoundation.org/projects/sanclementedam.html

Information on Mission Ranch Resort
http://travel.yahoo.com/p-hotel-374595-the_mission_ranch_resort-i

Information on Hidden Valley Institute
http://www.hiddenvalleymusic.org/

Background facts from California American Water
http://www.montereywaterfacts.com/www/
docs/4.311?PHPSESSID=0e9d328f21d04d71fcf5836d412b1001

For more information on the meetings, contact Dr. Monica Hunter at mhunger@pcl.org; Telephone: 831-320-2384

Tomorrow, the Transportation Agency for Monterey County will hold a pretty important meeting. Agenda Item #5 is listed as follows: “PROVIDE direction on policy regarding implementation of the Regional Development Impact Fee and Transportation Sales Tax, particularly the fee program being contingent on the passage of the sales tax, or not contingent on passage of the sales tax.”

Members of the Commission are being asked whether developers should be charged for the regional traffic impacts of their development projects, or whether they should be charged only if the public authorizes a sales tax for transportation purposes, by a 2/3 vote.

The answer to this question is pretty easy from a strictly “policy-oriented” point of view. When a new development project causes an impact on traffic (and they all do), it is completely appropriate for the public to require the developers (who will be making a profit from the project) to pay a fee to eliminate, or at least reduce, that traffic impact. Otherwise, the public is, in effect, simply subsidizing the developers. And that, of course, is the current situation.

Whether or not the taxpayers should also contribute money to reduce traffic impacts is actually a separate question, but very recently, the developers have demanded that the issues be linked. If TAMC links the issues, and the 2/3 vote for a new sales tax is not forthcoming, the developers will be off the hook!

For KUSP, this is Gary Patton.

More Information

TAMC Agenda for March 26, 2008 meeting
http://tamcmonterey.org/committees/tamc/
meetings/2008/march/TAMC_Agenda_March08.pdf

I was struck by an opinion piece that appeared in the Santa Cruz Sentinel on March 16th, authored by Frank Kertai, President of the Heritage Parks Association. I’ve placed a link to the article in the written transcript for today’s Land Use Report, so you can track it down if you’re interested.

Mr. Kertai’s comments were directed to a recent decision of the Santa Cruz County Local Agency Formation Commission, or LAFCO, which met on March 5th, and authorized an expansion in the Sphere of Influence of the City of Scotts Valley. Usually, a decision to allow expansion of a city’s Sphere of Influence is followed by the city’s annexation of the area added to the expanded Sphere. Development within that newly annexed area then typically follows. In this case, the City’s Sphere of Influence was actually smaller than the current city limits, in the so-called “Gateway South” and “Monte Fiore” areas. The City of Scotts Valley already had permit authority, and didn’t need LAFCO’s approval of the expanded Sphere to exercise it.

The thought that came to me, reading Mr. Kertai’s comments, is that a more sustained citizen participation in LAFCO matters (which I’ve advocated here for some time) might have made a difference, and made sure that LAFCO actually accomplished what Mr. Kertai properly identified as LAFCO's main mission: "to promote orderly growth and discourage urban sprawl."

For KUSP, this is Gary Patton.

More Information

Santa Cruz Sentinel Op-Ed on LAFCO decision
http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/ci_8593595

Santa Cruz County LAFCO Website
http://www.santacruzlafco.org/

March 5, 2008 LAFCO Agenda
http://www.santacruzlafco.org/pages/agenda/
20080305matrials/3-5-08.pdf

Staff Report on Sphere Review
http://www.santacruzlafco.org/pages/agenda/20080305matrials/
Feb%2029%20redone%20sphere%20memo%20for%20web.pdf

Frank Kertai Appeal
http://www.santacruzlafco.org/pages/agenda/20080305matrials/
March%204%202008%20Kertai%20Appeal.pdf

I hope most listeners have had a chance to experience the wonders of the Pinnacles National Monument, rising out of the chaparral-covered Gabilan Mountains, east of the Salinas Valley. If you haven’t, let me suggest a quick day trip, or overnight adventure for you, your friends, and family.

Today, though, besides highlighting a great place to experience the natural environment, here in our own Central Coast Region, I want to alert you to an upcoming policy participation opportunity. The public scoping period for Pinnacles National Monument’s bottomlands restoration environmental assessment is now open, and will continue through April 21st. A public meeting to discuss the proposed plan will be held from 6:00 to 7:30 p.m. on Wednesday, April 2nd, at the Jefferson School, 221 Old Hernandez Road, in Paicines.

The environmental review process is a process that actively seeks public involvement, to ensure that the governmental agencies that represent the public actually consider all of the possible issues surrounding the projects they propose to undertake. The process applies to new big box stores in the Pajaro area, to residential subdivisions everywhere, and to projects of the United States Department of the Interior. “Scoping” is at the very first stage of what is often a pretty lengthy process. If you care about the Pinnacles, you might want to get in at the beginning of this environmental assessment. There’s more on the KUSP website.

For KUSP, this is Gary Patton.

More Information

Monterey Herald Article
http://www.montereyherald.com/search/
ci_8592294?nclick_check=1

Pinnacles National Monument Website
http://www.nps.gov/pinn/

Pinnacles Fire Management Plan
http://www.nps.gov/pinn/parkmgmt/firemanagement.htm

Pinnacles General Management Plan
http://www.nps.gov/pinn/parkmgmt/
upload/pinnacles-news2_07_01_12.pdf

Email Scoping Comments on Pinnacles Environmental Review to: PINN_Superintendent@nps.gov

Here is some land use news from Stanislaus County, located in California’s Central Valley. On February 5th, Measure E, known as the “Stamp Out Sprawl” initiative, passed with a 67% “Yes” vote, beating out another ballot measure put before the voters by the Stanislaus County Board of Supervisors. Because Measure E got more votes than the Board’s “decoy” measure, the “Stamp Out Sprawl” initiative is now the law in Stanislaus County!

Measure E says that the Stanislaus County Supervisors cannot change agricultural zoning, to allow housing projects in unincorporated areas, without getting ballot permission from county voters. Modesto, the biggest city in the county, also requires a public vote on proposed projects, but those votes are not binding.

Measure E, in other words, is a very strong agricultural land protection measure, and it was adopted in the heart of the Central Valley. The economic productivity of Central Valley agriculture is undeniable, but Central Coast residents should note that Monterey County agriculture outperforms Central Valley agriculture by about ten to one. Only 1% of the agricultural land in the state is located in Monterey County, but Monterey County generates about 10% of the gross agricultural income of the entire state.

I’ll let you know if and when it looks like Monterey County wants to get serious about protecting its agricultural land!

For KUSP, this is Gary Patton.

More Information

Modesto Bee Article on Measure E
http://www.modbee.com/breakingnews/story/203272.html

Full Text of Measure E
http://www.smartvoter.org/2008/02/05/ca/stn/meas/E/

Full Text of Measure L (the Board’s “decoy” measure)
http://www.smartvoter.org/2008/02/05/ca/stn/meas/L/