Tonight, the Greenfield City Planning Commission is getting ready to begin the conversion of the prime agricultural land that surrounds that city. The Planning Commission will meet at six o'clock, and Item E-2 is a public hearing about a proposed subdivision of agricultural land. The idea would be to convert this land, the most economically productive agricultural land in the world, into 297 low-density residential units on 100 acres. Other housing, with higher densities is also proposed.

I particularly appreciate the candor of the agenda description. It says, among other things, "The proposed project is not in the current Sphere of Influence in the City and was not anticipated in the City's General Plan." In other words, the community planning process that was fairly recently completed did not contemplate that this land would turn into mini-estates for the wealthy. Nonetheless, the City of Greenfield is willing to entertain this idea.

City and County elected officials will ultimately make the decision on whether or not to covert the incredibly rich agricultural land surrounding Greenfield into more subdivisions, aimed not at meeting the housing needs of Greenfield's lower-income, largely Latino population, but wealthy commuters from somewhere else. And, of course, the voters also can have their say, should they choose to get involved. If you choose to get involved, don't miss tonight's meeting.

For KUSP, this is Gary Patton.

More Information

Greenfield City Website
http://ci.greenfield.ca.us/

Greenfield City General Plan
http://ci.greenfield.ca.us/General_Plan.htm

Planning Commission Agenda
http://ci.greenfield.ca.us/Planning_Agenda.htm

Usually, before recording the Land Use Report, I take a look at the agendas of the local governments located in Santa Cruz, Monterey, and San Luis Obispo counties. Local governments have the main responsibility for doing the land use planning that will ultimately shape our economic and community future, and that so profoundly affects our natural environment. My unhidden agenda is to try to get Central Coast residents more involved in this public policy process. And let's be frank, the phrase "public policy process" is another word for "politics." The land use (and other) decisions that shape our future are made by our elected representatives, and if we are not involved in the decision making process ourselves, we are not going to get the results we'd like.

Once public policy decisions have been made, through that political process that we all should get more involved in, the next question is who enforces the public policy directives that have been established. The answer, in the arena of land use, is that ordinary people do, usually by suing the government, to make the government follow its own land use rules and regulations.

The Monterey County Board of Supervisors is holding a special meeting this morning, the entire purpose of which is to discuss seven different lawsuits brought to enforce the land use and environmental policies of that County. So, both public participation, and litigation, make a huge difference!

For KUSP, this is Gary Patton.

More Information

Monterey County Board of Supervisors Agenda
http://monterey.granicus.com/
ViewPublisher.php?view_id=5

A draft Environmental Impact Report on GPU-5, the fifth draft of the proposed Monterey County General Plan Update, has recently been released. There's a link to this document in the transcript of today's Land Use Report.

This morning, at 10:00 o'clock, at a meeting in Salinas, the Monterey County Planning Commission will discuss the process that will be used for taking comments on that draft EIR, and then for taking action on the proposed General Plan.

Members of the public will have 45 days to read and comment on the Draft EIR. If you are interested in the future of Monterey County, and how the proposed land use policies in GPU-5 might impact your own property, or your business, or the spectacular natural resources of Monterey County, you should plan to participate in this process.

Yesterday, I mentioned litigation as a way for ordinary citizens to enforce legal requirements in the land use policy arena. Here's a "heads up." If you don't participate in the public policy review process, you can't sue the government later on. The courts say you need to "exhaust your administrative remedies." You need to try to get the County to do the right thing, before suing them for doing the wrong thing. Since the review schedule for the GPU-5 EIR was specifically set to give the greatest possible advantage to development interests, it's important for those with other interests to get engaged now.

For KUSP, this is Gary Patton.

More Information

Monterey County Government Website
http://www.co.monterey.ca.us/

Planning Commission Agenda
http://www.co.monterey.ca.us/planning/
cca/pc/2008/09-10-08/pc09-10-08a.htm

Salinas Californian article on GPU review process
http://www.thecalifornian.com/apps/
pbcs.dll/article?AID=2008809010304

Proposed 2007 General Plan Update
http://www.co.monterey.ca.us/planning/
gpu/draftNov2007/default.htm

Draft EIR on GPU
http://www.co.monterey.ca.us/planning/gpu/
2007%20GPU%20DEIR%20-%20SEPTEMBER
%202008/2007_GPU_DEIR_September_2008.htm

On August 12th, the Watsonville City Council considered alternatives for a proposed Atkinson Lane Specific Plan. The Council was considering different development options for this area in order to specify which options would be utilized in the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report.

One critic, writing in the Watsonville Register-Pajaronian, has opined that the kind of "mitigation" that the environmental review process is supposed to foster may not actually occur in Watsonville. He noted his concern that "‘mitigate' used to mean [to] take actions that lessen the effects of a problem [but that] now it means [to] spin the problem with words or sweep the problem under the rug."

Let me "spin" the issue a bit differently. The environmental review process mandated by the California Environmental Quality Act, or CEQA, is the most powerful tool easily available to a person who cares about the future of land use and development. But the CEQA process only works if there is very significant engagement on the substantive issues involved. What happens in the Atkinson Lane area could have real traffic impacts in Watsonville, and it could also have a profound impact on adjacent agricultural land. If local residents don't actively and effectively participate in the EIR process, it could be that possible problems will be "swept under the rug." But if there is real and effective participation, I don't think they will be.

For KUSP, this is Gary Patton.

More Information

City of Watsonville Website
http://www.ci.watsonville.ca.us/

Agenda Packet, August 12, 2008 City Council Meeting
http://www.ci.watsonville.ca.us/agendas/
081208/081208.html

Opinion article by Dan Chauvet in the Watsonville Register-Pajaronian
http://www.register-pajaronian.com/V2_news_
articles .php?heading=0&story_id=5460&page=77

Local governments have the basic responsibility for making the land use policy decisions that will determine our future, but local governments are all subject to the direction of the state government. Usually, our state laws delegate most of the important decisions to the local level, but that isn't always true, and it doesn't have to be true. Nothing prohibits the state government from giving local governments new, different (and perhaps better) directions on how to do land use.

As you probably know, this year's regular legislative session has now ended, and all the bills that have passed through the legislative process have been sent to the Governor either to sign or to veto. But this year there's a quirk. Governor Schwarzenegger has said that he will not sign any bill passed by the Legislature until the Legislature passes a budget. And the Legislature hasn't passed a budget, and the signs don't look promising for the prompt passage of a budget. So, it may be that a number of bills that would change local land use practices will not become law, though if the Governor takes no action at all the bills will become law, after thirty days. It's confusing!

If you check out the written transcript for today's Land Use Report, found on the KUSP website, you can link up to a list of some of the pending legislation that could make a difference, as well as review a critical analysis of Senate Bill 375, now on the Governor's desk, and the most important land use policy bill this year.

For KUSP, this is Gary Patton.

More Information

Dan Walters on the Legislative schedule
http://www.sacbee.com/111/story/1211922.html

Sign up for the PCL "Insider" at
http://org2.democracyinaction.org/
o/5056/t/1760/signUp.jsp?key=109

The latest PCL "Insider" Report on state legislation
http://org2.democracyinaction.org/o/5056
/t/1923/blastContent.jsp?email_blast_KEY=1079345&t=

A Critical Analysis of SB 375
Senate Bill 375 is the most important bill affecting land use passed during the past legislative session. It's now on the Governor's desk, for signature or veto. While SB 375 is definitely an important and positive step ahead, it's important to understand its limitations. There are three general areas of concern about SB 375:

1. Despite its best intentions, SB 375 might not, in the end, lead to significant and overdue changes to the land use patterns and transportation policies that not only contribute very significantly to greenhouse gas emissions, but that also undermine the vitality of our local communities, and put ever increasing stress on our invaluable natural resources.
   
   
2. The CEQA exemptions contained in the bill might lead to inappropriate restrictions on the ability of local community advocates to impact project level decisions that could adversely affect both our urban and rural environment.
   
   
3. SB 375 might act as a constraint on the plenary power of the Air Resources Board under AB 32 to adopt land use and transportation regulatory actions that the ARB determines are necessary to meet the mandated greenhouse gas reduction targets specified in that historic legislation. It is important, in other words, that SB 375 not be a ceiling on ARB action in this area, but a floor upon which additional actions may be built.

Making Sure Real Change Occurs
Unlike the Coastal Act, to which it has been compared, SB 375 does not establish "mandatory" requirements in the land use arena. Instead, it sets up a planning program which includes a number of "incentives" that are intended to motivate necessary land use and transportation policy changes. The key concern is whether or not these incentives will actually result in changed behavior. Unfortunately, it will take the expenditure of many tens of millions of dollars on planning work at the regional level, and a number of years, before the actual effects of SB 375 can be measured. In the meantime, since the global warming crisis is real, California must take prompt and effective action to reduce the global warming emissions related to land use patterns and transportation policy. Changes in planning must happen now to ensure that as communities develop over the next critical decades they grow in a sustainable way.

SB 375 mandates the creation of a "Sustainable Communities Strategy" (SCS) for larger regions of the state [Page 11, line 15]. Unfortunately, the SCS only has to "consider" natural resource areas and farmland [Page 11, line 31], so they are not given any new protection by SB 375. More fundamentally, the SCS does not have to achieve the emission reduction targets set by the ARB; instead, it has to achieve them if the regional planning agency finds that it would be "feasible" to do so [Page 11, line 39]. Since these agencies are a collection of local government officials who traditionally resist any state mandates, it is certainly not guaranteed that the SCS will lead to any positive changes in land use patterns and transportation policies that would achieve the ARB emission reduction targets, or that would produce other environmental benefits.

If the SCS doesn't achieve the emission reduction targets, then the regional planning agency has to prepare a second plan, a so-called "Alternative Planning Strategy" (APS), which would achieve the ARB targets [Page 14, line 13]. Since an APS is specifically said to have no regulatory effect with respect to land use [Page 15, line 1], the preparation of an APS may turn out to be exempt from CEQA review (as not a "project"). Furthermore, the bill specifically says that a decision on whether or not a project might have an environmental impact, which would require a CEQA review, cannot be established by showing that the project is inconsistent with an APS [Page 15, line 5]. Additionally, local general plans and other local land use policies do not have to be consistent with either the SCS or an APS [Page 16, line 12]. It therefore appears that this very expensive to produce planning document (the APS) may have very little, if any, practical impact on future land use planning and transportation decision making.

The bill has incorporated concepts from SB 303 (Ducheny), which environmental groups opposed. Specifically, SB 375 now requires local governments to rezone lands on a short deadline to accommodate the housing requirements imposed by the state on local regions [Page 27, line 31], and imposes significant penalties if this deadline is not met, including eliminating the ability of a local government to deny proposed projects [Page 31, line 1]. Since the accommodation of the housing needs by local governments does not have to be consistent with an SCS or APS, and since the 90-day deadline established for the rezoning requirement goes into effect on January 1, 2009, far earlier than there is either an SCS or APS, these provisions of SB 375 could actually stimulate sprawl.

Protecting CEQA
Section 14 establishes a total CEQA exemption for a class of projects called a "sustainable communities project" [Page 45, line 3]. Obviously, a total CEQA exemption means that all the beneficial effects of public participation and the consideration of alternatives and possible mitigations that CEQA ensures will be lost in this class of projects (which, admittedly, will be a small set of projects).

Section 14, amended in the August 13, 2008 version of the bill, also reduces CEQA review for a larger class of projects called "transit priority projects" [Page 49, line 3]. The impacts of these provisions in urban areas may be significant, and significantly curtail the impact of community participation. These provisions are of particular concern in the environmental justice community.

Section 15, added in the August 13, 2008 version of the bill, provides yet another CEQA exemption, eliminating any CEQA analysis of growth inducing impacts, or of any project specific or cumulative impacts from cars and light-duty truck trips generated by the project on global warming or on the regional transportation network" [Page 52, line 14].

Protecting the Power of the ARB Under AB 32
The declaration found in paragraph (c) of Section 1 of the bill (page 6) is absolutely true:

Under AB 32 "it will be necessary [legally] to achieve significant additional greenhouse gas reductions from changed land use patterns and improved transportation. Without improved land use and transportation policy, California will not be able to achieve the goals of AB 32."

The "goals" of AB 32 are not just "goals." They are mandatory requirements of the law. In other words, current law (AB 32) will require the state to take action to change land use patterns and to improve transportation policy, whether or not SB 375 is enacted. The question for those who want land use and transportation policy to be improved to meet AB 32 requirements is whether or not SB 375 will actually lead to the changes needed. Clearly, if SB 375 is enacted this year, prior to action by the ARB pursuant to the mandates found in AB 32, the ARB (and the courts) will take this major piece of legislation very seriously in deciding how the state should do what AB 32 demands. It is critically important that the provisions of SB 375 not set a ceiling on the mechanisms that California will use to comply with the requirements of AB 32, in terms of land use and transportation policy. The concern is that the ARB might seek to avoid some hard decisions about requiring changes in land use and transportation policy by simply citing to SB 375, and saying that this bill achieves the necessary reductions, and thus can be the only measure the ARB implements under the land use sector of the Scoping Plan. Since SB 375 doesn't, in fact, actually ensure that the necessary changes will occur (though it does provide helpful incentives that can motivate those changes), this would be an unfortunate impact of the bill. Further, if the ARB fails to require greater emissions reductions from the land use sector than what is currently considered in the Draft Scoping Plan for AB 32 issued on June 26, 2008, the impact of SB 375 could, in fact, be quite negative. SB 375 would offer significant CEQA exemptions for projects that are part of a plan that does very little to combat global warming.

SB 375 contains a "savings clause" which is intended to preserve the ability of the ARB to go beyond the specifics of SB 375, as the ARB implements the mandates of AB 32 [Page 16, line 8]. Hopefully, this language will be sufficient to stave off a claim by either the ARB or a court that SB 375 is intended to be the only way that the ARB is to meet its AB 32 responsibilities with respect to land use and transportation. The disclaimer, however, says that it applies only to Section 4 of the bill, and that its language could be read as an assertion that Section 4 does set a limit on the ARB's authority.