There is a new threat on the horizon to our system of environmental protection laws, in the shape of a state initiative measure sponsored by a group called “California Forward.” While it is posing as a “good government” measure, environmental attorneys have now uncovered what may be the initiative’s actual purpose. If qualified for the ballot and ultimately passed, the so-called “Government Performance and Accountability Act” will let local governments “veto” state environmental protection laws, including laws governing water quality, toxic discharges, endangered species protection, the Coastal Act, and even the California Environmental Quality Act. The main problem is found in provisions that allow local governments to adopt a so-called “Community Strategic Action Plan,” and then to invalidate any state law that the local government finds will “conflict” with that plan. Many city and county governments would use these powers to exempt major developments from current environmental protections.

Bruce McPherson, former Assembly Member, former State Senator, and now a candidate for Santa Cruz County Supervisor, is one of the official sponsors of this ballot measure. As you might imagine, the website for the initiative doesn’t mention the fact that the measure would let local governments veto state environmental laws.

If you’d like to read the “Government Performance and Accountability Act,” I’ve put references in today’s Land Use Report blog. Click on the Archives/Podcasts link on the KUSP website.

More Information:

• Gary Patton’s Blog: Two Worlds
• The Government Performance and Accountability Act (initiative measure now in circulation)
• Initiative Website

The Monterey County Board of Supervisors is receiving a report, today, on its General Plan Implementation Work Program. That’s Item S-5 on the agenda. Item S-4, somewhat related, is a public hearing on “interpreting,” as opposed to “implementing,” the General Plan.

Ideally, the community General Plan should be “clear,” and “certain.” The whole purpose of a General Plan is to provide guidance to the Planning Department and other agencies that review development proposals. If the provisions of the General Plan need to be “interpreted” by the Board of Supervisors (if these policies are not, in fact, “clear” and “certain” in and of themselves) then one of the main objectives of the General Plan has been undermined.

It does happen, on occasion, that General Plan policies aren’t as “clear” and as “certain” as they should have been, and that’s the situation, according to County planners, with respect to a proposed 42-unit subdivision on 7.92 acres on Val Verde Drive in Carmel Valley. If you think a 42-unit subdivision in that location is problematic, you should probably show up at the Board today. The recommendation from staff is to let the developer have “another chance” to prove this 42-unit subdivision is acceptable under the General Plan, and to initiate the environmental review process.

More Information:

• Gary Patton’s Blog: Two Worlds
• Monterey County Board of Supervisors Agenda
• Agenda Materials For Item S-4
• Land Use And The General Plan

Assembly Bill 1614, authored by Assembly Member Bill Monning, would extend the sunset date of the Fort Ord Reuse Authority (or FORA) from mid-2014 to 2024. The bill has passed the Assembly Committee on Local Government. I’ve provided a link in today’s Land Use Report blog.

The League of Women Voters of the Monterey Peninsula and LandWatch Monterey County have indicated support for the extension bill only if the bill is revised to include five conditions, including removing blight before developing wild land. A relatively new community group, called “Fort Ord Rec Users,” has also written a letter opposing AB 1614 in its current form. According to the Rec Users, “the Fort Ord Reuse Authority [has] failed to realize the objectives for which it was created."

Particularly recently, massive development proposals that would devastate the natural environment on Fort Ord have not been resisted by FORA. If the agency is to continue in existence, activists argue, then the agency should have to make the protection of the natural resources located on Fort Ord a requirement that can’t be avoided.

For the last week or so, I’ve talked about how concerned citizens and residents can be effective in the land use arena. Here’s an invitation to get engaged, now, in helping to determine the future of Fort Ord!

More Information:

• Gary Patton’s Blog: Two Worlds
• Monterey County Weekly Article on AB 1614
• Monterey Herald Article on AB 1614
• Information on AB 1614
• Fort Ord Reuse Authority Website
• Information on Fort Ord Rec Users
• LandWatch Website
• Fort Ord Rec Users Facebook Page
• League of Women Voters of The Monterey Peninsula

The Sierra Club is sponsoring a free, public workshop about the status, potential benefits, and potential environmental drawbacks of a joint desalination project under consideration by five Bay Area utilities. By “Bay Area,” I mean the San Francisco Bay Area. The workshop will be held at the CSU East Bay Conference Center, in downtown Oakland, on Saturday, March 31st, from 8:30 a.m. to 1:30 p.m. The workshop will outline current plans for desal in the Bay Area, and will focus specifically on environmentalists’ concerns about the proposed Regional Desalination Project and its likely location at the confluence of the San Francisco Bay and the Delta.

Because desal plans are active in both Monterey County and Santa Cruz County, this may be a workshop that residents from “our” Bay Area may like to attend. Space will be limited, so the Sierra Club is asking interested persons to register in advance. I’ve provided a link to the registration page in today’s Land Use Report blog.

Peter Drekmeier, Bay Area Program Director of the Tuolumne River Trust, will moderate the workshop. Speakers include: Conner Everts, Executive Director of the Southern California Watershed Alliance, Adam Scow, California Campaigns Director for Food and Water Watch, and Debbie Cook, Board President of the Post Carbon Institute.

More Information:

• Gary Patton’s Blog: Two Worlds
• Click Here To Register For The Workshop

The CSU East Bay Conference Center is on the corner of 11th and Broadway, in downtown Oakland, one block south of the 12th Street BART station.

The Wittwer & Parkin law firm with which I am associated works with the Sierra Club Pajaro River Watershed Committee, and when I returned from my travels last week, I found out that Santa Cruz County is proceeding with a proposal to excavate excess sediment from selected locations inside the Pajaro River levees, in order to improve the flood carrying capacity of the levee system. The proposed project is intended to relieve potential flooding caused by failure of the Pajaro River levees. Modeling results show that a volume of up to 336,000 cubic yards of material could be excavated from eleven different locations between Highway 1 and Murphy Road Crossing. Nine excavation sites would be located within Santa Cruz County and two within Monterey County. The County believes that the project will benefit fish and wildlife by creating overbank resting areas and still water areas in the widened floodplain. Steelhead trout use this section of the River as a migration corridor to access tributaries such as Corralitos and Salsipuedes Creeks.

The official document out for review is a “Notice of Intent” to issue a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the proposed project, meaning that no Environmental Impact Report would be prepared. The public review period ends on Friday, April 6th.

More Information:

• Gary Patton’s Blog: Two Worlds
• Monterey Herald Article on Proposed Bench Excavation Project
• Initial Study Document
• Notice of Intent Document
• For more information contact Todd Sexauer in the County of Santa Cruz at (831) 454-3511.