Is today the day the Legislature and the Governor will make the budget changes necessary to prevent an economic and public service meltdown in California? Quite possibly, yes. There have been lots of closed-door meetings recently, and that includes meetings held this past weekend.

Those who care about the environment and land use policy will be distressed to learn that many of these closed-door conversations have nothing to do with finance, or economics, or taxing, or spending. Thirteen Republican members of the Legislature have pledged not to vote for a budget bill unless legislation is enacted that will roll back environmental protections, and eliminate the use of the California Environmental Quality Act to address global warming. This last item, in particular, will affect land use, permitting a continuation of the sprawl that has been destroying our state.

Because it takes a two-thirds vote to pass the budget, a minority of legislators can enforce this kind of outrageous demand that the Legislature abandon the environment in return for action to address the incredible fiscal challenges facing California. You can get details in the transcript of today's Land Use Report. In the meantime, know that Senators Abel Maldonado and Jeff Denham, and Assembly Member Sam Blakeslee, all of whom represent portions of the Central Coast, are among the "dirty thirteen!"

For KUSP, this is Gary Patton.

More Information

Here are the areas in which environmental rollbacks are being demanded:

• Relax rules on air pollution from diesel trucks
• No environmental review for sales of surplus state property
• No CEQA review to consider global warming emissions
• Relax air pollution rules aimed at cleaning up farm equipment
• Reverse rules aimed at toxic pesticide pollution
• Let environmentally-damaging road project proceed without environmental mitigation

Here is the official language demanded
http://www.sacbee.com/static/weblogs
/the_swarm/budget%20language.pdf

Here are the "dirty thirteen" members of the Legislature who insist on these environmental rollbacks as a condition of their vote to keep our government functioning: Assembly Members Niello, Berryhill, Gilmore, Blakeslee, Knight, A. Strickland, and Smyth and State Senators: Denham, Maldonado, Runner, T. Strickland, Dutton, and Benoit (Central Coast Legislators are highlighted)

Poll showing that Californians overwhelmingly reject environmental rollbacks, as the price of a budget "deal"
http://www.ecovote.org/news/poll012609.pdf

Today, item #29 on the agenda of the Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors is related to longstanding efforts to protect the incomparable Santa Cruz County North Coast.

When I first became active in Santa Cruz County politics (and this was in the early 1970's), one developer was proposing what amounted to an entire new city on the North Coast, doubling the size of the City of Santa Cruz. This was the infamous Wilder Ranch and Beaches Project, and a dedicated citizen's group called "Operation Wilder" managed to defeat that plan. Stopping a development, however, as most listeners realize, doesn't mean that the developer gives up and goes away. The opposite is usually the case. As proof, I'd refer you to the "Dalidio Project" in San Luis Obispo County. Despite multiple rejections of this project, that landowner/developer just keeps coming!

In order to secure the permanent protection of the North Coast, Santa Cruz County has worked tirelessly for over thirty years to ensure that governmental agencies or nonprofits acquire either the land itself, or development rights that will mean permanent conservation of these North Coast lands. Most recently, the Trust For Public Land and the Federal Bureau of Land Management have been working to this end. Today's agenda item fine tunes a Williamson Act contract, to make long-term conservation a reality.

For KUSP, this is Gary Patton.

More Information

Santa Cruz County Website
http://www.co.santa-cruz.ca.us/

Board of Supervisors Agenda, February 3, 2009
http://sccounty01.co.santa-cruz.ca.us/bds/Govstream/
ASP/Display/SCCB_AgendaDisplayWeb.asp?MeetingDate=2/3/2009

It would be hard to overemphasize the importance of water policy as it relates to land use. If you care about land use, you should be keeping your eye on decisions about water. Lots of Monterey County residents are doing just that! Partly, but not entirely, because of the work of LandWatch Monterey County, there was been a growing awareness that land use decisions are likely to have a determinative effect on the kind of future we create for ourselves and r our grandchildren. An increased focus on water policy, from an environmental, as opposed to a purely "development" orientation, has been one result.

Last week, a decision by the Monterey County Board of Supervisors shows that change has actually arrived. North Monterey County has very significant water supply and water quality problems, but up until recently that hasn't stopped the Board from approving subdivisions and construction projects that make the problems worse. The replacement of former Supervisor Ila Mettee-McCutchon by newly elected Supervisor Jane Parker has changed that. A proposed North County development, earlier approved by a 3-2 vote, came back to the Board last week, and the Board turned down the development on an opposite 3-2 vote. Supervisor Parker made the difference. The Board's action recognized the concerns of current residents, and the environment, as having a priority over development.

You can get the full story, and information on upcoming water policy discussions, in the transcript for today's Land Use Report.

For KUSP, this is Gary Patton.

More Information:

LandWatch Monterey County Website
http://www.landwatch.org

Monterey Herald article on development turn down
http://www.montereyherald.com/local/
ci_11571033?nclick_check=1

Monterey County Weekly article on water policy
http://www.montereycountyweekly.com/archives/
2009/2009-Jan-29/water-for-monterey-county-coalition
-wants-to-stop-studying-start-acting/1/@@index

Santa Cruz County listeners are probably aware that the Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation Commission (usually just called the "Transportation Commission") has made a decision to purchase the Union Pacific rail line that runs from the Santa Cruz/Monterey County line to Davenport, on the County's North Coast. The decision has been controversial, which is one reason that lots of people know about it.

I find that while people know about the decision in general, they don't know about what's going on in detail, and some people have been expecting some type of immediate action by the Commission actually to use the rail line for some sort of transportation purpose. Again, views differ on whether that would be a good idea, or a bad idea, and what sort of transportation activities should take place on this rail right of way, but most of the people I talk to seem to think that the acquisition of the right of way is now complete, and are waiting for the next shoe to drop.

If you're interested in this topic, take a look at the written transcript for today's Land Use Report, which you can track down by clicking on the Land Use Report icon on the KUSP website. You'll find a link to a fairly comprehensive report, outlining the status of the rail project. The Commission will be considering that report today. The "bottom line" is that the purchase of the rail line is not yet complete, since the Commission is undertaking "due diligence" research in a number of areas. Final acquisition is currently predicted to occur in August of this year.

For KUSP, this is Gary Patton.

More Information

Transportation Commission Website
http://www.sccrtc.org/

Agenda for February 5, 2009 Commission Meeting
http://www.sccrtc.org/packet/2009/0902/TCAgenda0902.html.
The report on the rail line acquisition is available for download. It's Agenda Item #21.

The City of Marina has been one of the most active areas for development in the entirety of Monterey County. It is also the only city in Monterey County that currently has an urban growth boundary, to focus and contain future growth, and to protect vitally important open space, agricultural, and natural resource lands. That urban growth boundary exists, incidentally, only because of a successful citizen initiative in Marina. Looking at the history of development in the city, it's clear that the city has not been "anti-development," even though it does have this citizen-adopted environmental protection measure on the books.

Marina's land use policy has actually tried pretty much to do what "smart growth" advocates say is best: to focus new construction on lands already committed to urban development, protecting natural lands outside existing urban areas. Much of the land that has been designated for development is part of the former Fort Ord, but the City has also permitted new developments that will help revitalize its existing "downtown" area.

As I say, there has been lots of focus on development in Marina! Projects with thousands of units have been approved, and some of those development projects are already underway. Others, I may say, are not. If you'd like to get involved in future development decisions affecting Marina, mark your calendars for Saturday, February 28th, when the City will hold a facilitated public workshop and design charette related to the Cypress Knolls Development.

For KUSP, this is Gary Patton.

More Information

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

Information on the Cypress Knolls Project
http://www.ci.marina.ca.us/depecon1xcypressknolls.htm