Last Tuesday, the Santa Cruz City Council got a report on the implementation of its August 2008 settlement agreement with the University of California. The settlement agreement brought an end to multiple lawsuits challenging UCSC growth. The Coalition to Limit University Expansion, or CLUE, which also sued the University, also signed off on the settlement agreement. The report made by City staff focused on the many monetary payments to the City that the settlement agreement has required. CLUE, which also made a presentation, focused on the provisions of the settlement agreement relating to water supply.

The agreement contemplates the construction of over 3,000,000 square feet of new buildings on the UCSC “North Campus” area, and the University wants the City to provide up to 152,000,000 gallons of fresh water each year to support this new construction. The potential problem is that this amount of water may be all the “surplus” water that the City has, which could leave other water users high and dry. Despite promises to CLUE, during the settlement negotiations, that the City would be “neutral” on this commitment of water for UCSC growth, the City is actively sponsoring the effort to commit this water to the University. What’s more, City water users are currently on the hook for all the costs involved in the City’s application process. You can get more information on the KUSP website.

For KUSP, this is Gary Patton.

More Information

City of Santa Cruz Website
http://www.ci.santa-cruz.ca.us/

You can obtain a copy of the materials provided to the Council for Item #18 on the June 23, 2009 Agenda, relating to the settlement agreement, and including the staff report and the full text of the settlement agreement, by clicking on “Agendas and Minutes” in the City Council Quick Links box at the top, right hand side of the main page.

If you would like a copy of a letter and PowerPoint presentation provided to the Santa Cruz City Council by the Community Water Coalition, referencing City reports that outline some important concerns about the City’s water supply and land use planning efforts, send a request to land@kusp.org.

Water supply and land use planning issues are of critical importance in Santa Cruz County. They’re just as important (perhaps even more important) on the Monterey County side of the Bay. As listeners probably know, there is what pretty much amounts to a moratorium on new water connections on the Monterey Peninsula, and the Salinas groundwater basin, and the Pajaro groundwater basin, in North Monterey County, are in conditions of continuing overdraft.

Those concerned about the commitment of what may be the City of Santa Cruz’s last remaining water “surplus” to support major new growth at the UCSC campus, are trying to make sure that the kind of problems already facing Monterey County don’t happen here, and that a new connection moratorium isn’t going to be necessary within the City of Santa Cruz Water Service Area. If such a moratorium were necessary, and there are some signals within the official reports of the City of Santa that it might be, those affected will include not only residents of the City of Santa Cruz, but also residents of Live Oak, Pasatiempo, parts of the City of Capitola, and North Coast farmers. Listeners who want more information should check the transcript of today’s Land Use Report.

Meanwhile, Monterey County listeners might want to attend a meeting tomorrow, sponsored by the Water For Monterey County Coalition and focusing on regional water supply solutions. It starts at 9:30 in the morning at the MBEST Center.

For KUSP, this is Gary Patton.

More Information:

Water For Monterey County website
http://www.waterformontereycounty.org/

To obtain more information on the Water For Monterey County Coalition, and on its meeting scheduled for tomorrow morning, please contact: Steve Kasower – Email: steve@seacompany.org; Telephone: 916-442-1477.

If you would like a copy of a letter and PowerPoint presentation provided to the Santa Cruz City Council by the Community Water Coalition, referencing City reports that outline some important concerns about the City’s water supply and land use planning efforts, send a request to land@kusp.org.

Senate Bill 375, enacted last year, has been hailed as a worthy follow up to AB 32, the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006. AB 32 establishes the framework for an aggressive effort in California to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions that are putting our planet in peril. SB 375 is meant to address the land use and transportation related portions of our greenhouse gas inventory.

About 40% of the CO2 emissions occurring in California do come from the transportation sector. The state’s plan to reduce the carbon content of fuels will definitely help reduce those emissions, but that won’t be enough. If we are serious about global warming, we need to change our sprawling land use development patterns. Reducing the VMT (or vehicle miles traveled) associated with future growth and development is critically important. That’s the ambition of SB 375.

Because SB 375 is not regulatory in nature, but only provides “incentives” for local communities to do the right thing, its success is far from certain. If you’d like to see what is involved, and what you can do to help, check the transcript of today’s Land Use Report for a link to a free new guidebook published by the Natural Resources Defense Council, the sponsor of SB 375. It’s an important new publication that you should read.

For KUSP, this is Gary Patton.

More Information:

NRDC Guidebook on SB 375
http://www.nrdc.org/globalwarming/sb375/

The Community Water Coalition, a relatively new group based in the City of Santa Cruz, has drawn attention to how future UCSC growth might impact current and future water supplies for non-University water customers. Those who have a stake in the issue include not only residents and businesses in the City of Santa Cruz, but also residents and businesses in Live Oak, Pasatiempo, parts of the City of Capitola, and North Coast farmers.

It’s no secret that the Land Use Report has been trying to focus attention on the connection between water supply planning and land use planning, and that I, personally, have been trying to promote some public discussion about how well we are coordinating these planning efforts. The issues involved go far beyond the impacts of proposed new growth at UCSC, but the University is asking for the lion’s share of what “surplus” water the City may still have, so any examination of how well we’re doing, in coordinating land use planning with water supply planning, definitely impacts the University. Furthermore, the UCSC settlement agreement calls for special treatment of this issue by the Santa Cruz County Local Agency Formation Commission, or LAFCO.

Listeners who’d like to get the University’s perspective (and the University can point with some pride to the excellent work that they are doing on water conservation) can find some helpful links in the transcript of today’s Land Use Report.

For KUSP, this is Gary Patton.

More Information

Santa Cruz Sentinel Editorial, June 26, 2009
http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/opinion/ci_12693949

Santa Cruz Sentinel Letters to the Editor, June 27, 2009
http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/letters/ci_12702321

UCSC statement on the background of the UCSC-CLUE-City litigation
http://lrdp.ucsc.edu/litigation-background.shtml

UCSC public statement on the settlement agreement
http://messages.ucsc.edu/text.asp?pid=2366

UCSC’s summary of the UCSC-CLUE- City settlement agreement
http://lrdp.ucsc.edu/settlement-summary.shtml

UCSC FAQ sheet
http://lrdp.ucsc.edu/faq.shtml

If you would like a copy of a letter and PowerPoint presentation provided to the Santa Cruz City Council by the Community Water Coalition, referencing City reports that outline some important concerns about the City’s water supply and land use planning efforts, send a request to land@kusp.org.

The California Coastal Commission is the state’s premier land use planning agency. Most residents of California live within thirty miles of the coast, and coastal protection has been a key objective of the people of the State since 1972. That’s when a citizen initiative put a stop to the destructive developments that were consuming the coastline, and that were putting a wall between the public and the beach.

I am proud of having fought to save Lighthouse Field from development, and of having written a citizen initiative, enacted by Santa Cruz City voters in June 1974, that helped protect and preserve Lighthouse Field as the last remaining open space along the coast within the City of Santa Cruz. That Lighthouse Field victory, however, can ultimately be attributed to the powerful language of the Coastal Act.

The “unhidden agenda” of the Land Use Report is to stimulate Central Coast residents to get personally involved in the land use planning issues that will so profoundly affect the future of our local economy, environment, and our success (or lack of success) in achieving our social equity goals. One great way to get involved is to watch the California Coastal Commission in action. Residents of San Luis Obispo County will have an opportunity to do that next week, since the Commission will be meeting next Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday, in San Luis Obispo.

There is more information on the KUSP website.

For KUSP, this is Gary Patton.

More Information

Coastal Commission website
http://www.coastal.ca.gov/

Agenda for upcoming meeting
http://www.coastal.ca.gov/mtgcurr.html