Tomorrow evening, the Marina City Council will be conducting an important public hearing, and I'd like to give you a "heads up," so interested persons can plan to attend. The public hearing is being held in connection with the City's proposal to amend the tentative map for a development that used to be called "University Villages," and that is now being called "The Dunes on Monterey Bay."

When developers rename their developments, they often, as in this case, seek to disguise the realities, and to speak to the sometimes unconscious world of dreams and aspirations we each have within us, all the better to market their product. The new homes proposed are on the inland side of Highway One; thus, on relatively flat land; they are not in immediate view of Monterey Bay, and they are right next door to the California State University campus located in Seaside and Marina. You can decide which name better reflects "reality."

The reality of the hearing is that the City is trying to accommodate the developer, and make things better for the developer, and they need to certify that the changes being made to the basic configuration of the proposed development (and this is what a tentative map establishes) do not lead to unaccounted-for environmental impacts.

You can get more information on the hearing tomorrow night below.

For KUSP, this is Gary Patton.

More Information

City of Marina Website
http://www.ci.marina.ca.us/

A download link to the public hearing notice is prominent on the first page of the City's website.

Proposition 1A would authorize the state to borrow approximately $10 billion dollars (at a total cost to the taxpayers of $20 billion dollars, when interest on the borrowed money is taken into account). The money would be used to begin construction of a High Speed Rail system between San Francisco and Los Angeles. Taxpayers would not be expected to pick up the whole tab, and Proposition 1A in fact says that bond funds may be used only to provide up to one-half of the total cost of construction of each corridor or segment of a corridor. The ultimate cost of the proposed system is likely to be on the order of $50 billion dollars, so passing Proposition 1A, while putting real money on the table, will not guarantee that the system will ever be constructed.

The land use implications of the proposed High Speed Rail system are enormous. For the most part, the proposed routing is not directly adjacent to existing transportation corridors, but goes through the agricultural lands of the Central Valley. Unless history is different this time around, such major transportation infrastructure would promote new growth along the route. Speculative developers from the Sacramento area, in fact, have already been making low-cost purchases of lands in the Los Baños area, clearly anticipating an opportunity for "new town" development along the proposed High Speed rail corridor.

There is more information below.

For KUSP, this is Gary Patton.

More Information

The text and ballot arguments on Proposition 1A
http://www.voterguide.sos.ca.gov/title-sum/
prop1a-title-sum.htm

Report of Senate Transportation and Housing Committee
http://www.sen.ca.gov/ftp/SEN/COMMITTEE/
STANDING/TRANSPORTATION/_home/REPORTS.HTP

Senate Bill Analysis
http://ct2k2.capitoltrack.com/Bills%5Casm%5Cab_3001-
3050/ab_3034_cfa_20080808_164606_sen_floor.html

High Speed Rail Authority Website
http://www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/

The "Yes on 1A" Website
http://www.californiahighspeedtrains.com/

A Video Presentation by the Center for Governmental Studies
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=
88mupeh4mFA&feature=related

High Speed Rail Blog
http://cahsr.blogspot.com/2008/09/
california-cannot-afford-to-reject-prop.html

A "Pro" Proposition 1A Argument
http://www.californiaprogressreport.com/
2008/09/prop_1a_and_hig.html

Defense of Place Opposition Arguments
http://www.hsrlandimpacts.org/

Senate Bill 375 was passed by the Legislature, and signed by the Governor. Its proponents hail the bill as the "most important land use legislation since the Coastal Act." I, personally, think that's an overstatement, since the Coastal Act established mandatory rules that limit or eliminate developments that could damage coastal resources. SB 375 doesn't really establish any new land use mandates, but sets up a system of "incentives" that might promote better land use decisions. There is a big difference between "incentives" and "regulations," and that's the difference between SB 375 and the Coastal Act. Having said that, there is no doubt that SB 375 will have important, and hopefully positive, impacts on future development in California.

The basic idea of SB 375 is that transportation funding should be tied to good land use planning. That's the essence of what has been called "smart growth." If we were actually "smart" about our transportation investments, no transportation funds would be used to support sprawl, and such funding would be used only to support developments that help lower greenhouse gas emissions by reducing the number of vehicle miles traveled associated with new development. SB 375 is trying to "incentivize" this kind of planning. It sets up an elaborate planning process to achieve these results.

I'll have more on SB 375 tomorrow and Friday.

For KUSP, this is Gary Patton.

More Information

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

SB 375 will become effective on January 1st, 2009, and the League of California Cities has prepared an extensive analysis figuring out exactly what this new law will mean. Here are just a few points made by the League:

• The "sustainable communities strategy" (or SCS) called for by SB 375 does not have to achieve the greenhouse gas reduction targets mandated by the Air Resources Board. In addition, "the SCS will not directly affect local land use decisions. The SCS does not in any way supersede a local general plan, local specific plan, or local zoning."
  
  
• If the SCS doesn't achieve greenhouse gas reduction targets, then the local government does have to provide an "alternative planning strategy" (or APS) that does achieve them. However, "the APS…does not automatically affect the distribution of transportation funding … [and] does not directly affect or supersede local land use decisions…."
  
  
• Finally, under SB 375, decision-makers are "made up wholly of local elected officials … not likely to support measures that limit the discretion of cities and counties…."

Unfortunately, this very accurate summary by the League of Cities seems to indicate that more "business as usual" is in store for land use and transportation planning. You can get the full League report below.

For KUSP, this is Gary Patton.

More Information

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

A "Technical Overview" of SB 375 is found on the League of California Cities website. Use this link to get to the page where you can download the entire report
http://www.cacities.org/index.jsp?displaytype=11&
zone=locc&section=&sub_sec=&tert=&story=27459

Governor Schwarzenegger signed SB 375 on September 30th, and here's how he started off his signing message:

I am proud to sign Senate Bill 375. This legislation constitutes the most sweeping revision of land use policies since Governor Ronald Reagan signed the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) nearly four decades ago, and will provide much needed guidance to local planning agencies on transportation, housing and other land-use decisions necessary to meet our greenhouse gas reduction goals under AB 32.

As noted on earlier editions of this Land Use Report, there is a big difference between providing "guidance" and establishing new requirements. SB 375 does provide guidance galore, but whether this will actually change the behavior of local governments, as they get proposals for more sprawl developments, remains to be seen.

The Governor, however, went beyond the rosy assessment presented above. His official signing message (which went a long ways beyond what he said in his press release) called for further legislation to relax some of the current provisions of CEQA, and to make sure that transportation and other projects already "in the pipeline" don't get delayed by efforts to make them live up to the higher standards that might be called for under AB 32, the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006. This is one more sign that further action will be necessary to make California a truly "smart growth" state.

For KUSP, this is Gary Patton.

More Information

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

A "Technical Overview" of SB 375 is found on the League of California Cities website. Use this link to get to the page where you can download the entire report
http://www.cacities.org/index.jsp?displaytype=11
&zone=locc&section=&sub_sec=&tert=&story=27459

The Governor's Press Statement on SB 375
http://gov.ca.gov/press-release/10697

Interested persons should also review the "signing message" authored by the Governor, which can be downloaded by going to the following website
http://gov.ca.gov/press-release/10697