The following Land Use Reports have been presented on KUSP by Gary Patton, Executive Director of The Planning and Conservation League. The opinions expressed by Mr. Patton are not necessarily those of KUSP
Radio, nor of any of its sponsors.

Monday, October 15, 2007 – Water Overdraft in the Pajaro Basin

Tomorrow, at 1:30 in the afternoon, the Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors will meet with the General Manager of the Pajaro Valley Water Management Agency, to discuss the future of the Pajaro Valley groundwater basin. This is a public meeting, and I encourage your attendance. You can get more information by clicking on the Land Use Report link on the KUSP website.  

County Supervisor Ellen Pirie took the initiative to make tomorrow’s meeting happen. That proves she’s keeping her eye on the ball, in terms of issues that affect her constituents in the coastal areas of South County. Both agricultural and residential water users along the coast are facing a real problem. Persistent groundwater overdraft is letting seawater intrude into the Pajaro Basin, which degrades the quality of the water that both agricultural operations and residential users depend upon.  

In 1984, the state created the Pajaro Valley Water Management Agency, to address the problem, displacing the leading role then played by Santa Cruz County. Unfortunately, the PVWMA has now run into significant fiscal difficulties, because they imposed fees to finance their operations without properly complying with the provisions of Proposition 218, which requires voter approval. Supervisor Pirie is suggesting that it may be time for the County to get more actively involved. 

For KUSP, this is Gary Patton. 

More Information
Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors Agenda – http://sccounty01.co.santa-cruz.ca.us/bds/Govstream/ASP/Display/SCCB_AgendaDisplayWeb.asp?MeetingDate=10/16/2007
Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors’ Report on Pajaro Aquifer – http://sccounty01.co.santa-cruz.ca.us/bds/Govstream/BDSvData/non_legacy/agendas/2007/20071016/PDF/043.pdf  


Tuesday, October 16, 2007 – Monterey County GPU5

The Monterey County Board of Supervisors is meeting today, and at 1:30 this afternoon they will be holding a public hearing on the fifth version of their proposed General Plan Update document.  

A general plan is the “Constitution” for land use in the local community, and as KUSP listeners probably remember, the Monterey County Board of Supervisors has been trying to amend the County’s 1982 General Plan since 1999. The County has been at it for over seven years, now, and has spent at least a million dollars a year on the update process. The document that the Board will consider this afternoon, called “GPU5,” is a response to the rejection by the voters of “GPU4.” 

The Board began its update process by asking the public what it thought. Based on what the public said, twelve “Guiding Objectives” were adopted by the Board, and they set the stage for the first versions of the General Plan Update. Unfortunately, the Board of Supervisors seemed to care more about what developers thought than about following the Guiding Objectives. The Guiding Objectives were ultimately jettisoned by the Board, and then the public fought back, with a voter referendum, trying to save agricultural land, build more truly affordable housing, stop groundwater overdraft, and reduce future traffic.  

These issues are still preeminent in Monterey County, and it’s a public hearing today. Why not show up and say your piece? 

For KUSP, this is Gary Patton. 

More Information
Monterey County Website – http://www.co.monterey.ca.us/
Monterey County Board of Supervisors Agenda - http://www.co.monterey.ca.us/cttb/agenda101607.htm  


Wednesday, October 17, 2007 – Bills and Laws

It’s not really true that the “Legislature proposes, and the Governor disposes,” but … Well, maybe it is something like that! I work as an environmental lobbyist in Sacramento, and during the entire legislative session, the focus is on the elected members of the California State Legislature, Assembly Members, and Senators alike. Convincing members of the Legislature to oppose bad bills, and to support good ones, is what environmental lobbyists do. But when the session is done, those bills that made it through the legislative process still have one further hurdle to jump; the bills don’t become law unless the Governor signs them.  

Last Sunday at midnight was the deadline for the Governor, and he has tended to push a lot of his decisions right to the end. Vetoing a bill over the weekend garners less media notice. 

Since I have to prerecord my weekday Land Use Reports, and I do that prior to midnight on Sunday, I can’t give you a final tally, but I can give you a website where you can get a report from the Governor. Track down the transcript to today’s Land Use Report, and see what sort of bills made it over that final hurdle. We already know that the Governor signed Assembly Member Laird’s bill on water efficient toilets, and a package of bills on flood policy, which also included a bill by Assembly Member Laird. Today’s transcript highlights some other wins and losses, as well! 

For KUSP, this is Gary Patton. 

More Information
Basic legislative bill information – www.leginfo.ca.gov
Governor’s Website on Bill Signing - http://gov.ca.gov/bills/
Highlights of the 2007 Legislative Session

• SB 5 (Machado) Requires a Central Valley Flood Protection Plan – SIGNED
• AB 162 (Wolk) Requires land use decisions to take account of flood protection issues – SIGNED
• AB 70 (Jones) Requires local governments to take financial responsibility for flooding – SIGNED
• AB 156 (Laird) Requires operational changes to state-federal flood control projects – SIGNED
• AB 715 (Laird) Requires more efficient toilets – SIGNED
• SB 803 (Lowenthal) Requires transportation projects to utilize Conservation Corp participants – VETOED
• SB 455 (Denham) Authorizes City of Soledad to use prison wastewater treatment plant - VETOED

As I reported recently, the City of Marina is at the center of growth and development on the Monterey Peninsula. Recently, the City Council has debated an important philosophical issue, with respect to the redevelopment of what Marina calls its “downtown” area, located along Reservation Road and Del Monte Boulevard.  

The question presented is whether or not the City should be seeking to provide more “affordable” housing in this part of the City (in other words, housing that a family with an average or below average income can afford) or whether it makes more sense for the City to promote upscale housing. CHISPA, which is Monterey County’s biggest affordable housing developer, would like to build 35 affordable housing units, targeted to seniors, on public lands immediately adjacent to the City’s new $5 million transit center. The City Council said “no,” agreeing with Council Member Gary Wilmot, who is quoted as saying “we need to do, at a minimum, 70% market rate.” “Market rate” means a price equal to what the market will bear, and this definitely prices ordinary income people out of the equation. 

If you are a Marina resident, you might want to get involved in this community discussion. All the big subdivisions proposed in Marina, with literally thousands of units, are geared towards upper income purchasers. Should the “downtown,” where people can walk, and take the bus, follow the same model? The future of the City will depend on the answer. 

For KUSP, this is Gary Patton. 

More Information
For a news story reporting on the Council discussion, see the following website – http://www.montereycountyweekly.com/issues/Issue.10-11-2007/news/Article.news_3  


Friday, October 19, 2007 – Army Bases and Embedded Energy

I frequently remind KUSP listeners to let me know about land use issues that will be of interest to residents of the Central Coast. Here are a couple of items that listeners have recently brought to my attention. 

First, activities on Fort Hunter Liggett and Camp Roberts can have significant environmental and other impacts in South Monterey County, and in North San Luis Obispo County. As it turns out, the Army is proposing to establish a Regional Training Center for Reserve premobilization, and to expand vehicle and equipment storage and maintenance at Fort Hunter Liggett. The KUSP website has more information, including a link to a preliminary Environmental Assessment. 

Second, a listener has suggested that I highlight the connection between historic preservation efforts and efforts to reduce global warming emissions. I’ve put a link in the transcript of today’s Land Use Report to an article by Donovan Rypkema that puts a focus on the “embodied energy” in existing structures that is lost when older buildings are torn down to build something new. Green Building Standards for new construction are good, but what if we’re wasting our past energy expenditures by tearing down structures that could be functionally rehabilitated for new uses? I believe that a commitment to historic preservation is central to maintaining the integrity of our local communities. This article makes the point that it’s central to a better relationship to our global environment, as well. 

For KUSP, this is Gary Patton. 

More Information
The Army Website for Fort Hunter Liggett – http://www.liggett.army.mil/sites/local/
Wikipedia History of Fort Hunter Liggett - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_Hunter_Liggett
Draft Environmental Assessment For Proposed Changes to Fort Hunter Liggett – http://www.liggett.army.mil/sites/directorates/dpw/FHL_RTC_EA_final_draft.pdf
For those who may be interested in working on Fort Hunter Liggett issues, contact Susan Harvey at ifsusan@tcsn.net
“Economics, Sustainability, and Historic Preservation” - http://www.ptvermont.org/rypkema.htm