The Association of Environmental Professionals is dedicated to the enhancement, maintenance, and protection of the natural and human environment. Many AEP members spend their professional hours reading and evaluating, or writing, Environmental Impact Reports. EIRs are documents that provide information to decision-makers (often elected officials) before these decision-makers take actions that could have a negative impact on the environment. CEQA is, arguably, this nation's strongest environmental law, and most members of AEP are experts where CEQA is concerned. They're experts, in other words, in documenting and analyzing the potential environmental impacts of proposed governmental actions.

This Thursday, AEP will be hosting a free forum at 7:30 p.m., at the Salinas Community Center, to explore the environmental impacts that could be expected from enactment of the Community General Plan Initiative, on the one hand, or the Board of Supervisors' General Plan, GPU4, on the other. There is more information on the KUSP website.

I'm also posting a kind of "correction." Last Thursday, I referred listeners to a Monterey Herald article comparing the two General Plan ballot measures. The League of Women Voters has shown that the Herald article wasn't completely accurate, so you can get the League's response at below.

For KUSP, this is Gary Patton.

More Information

Monterey Bay AEP Website
http://www.montereybayaep.org/

For more information on the Forum contact Michael Zeller at 408-460-5856

The Monterey Herald comparison article, published Sunday, May 6th
http://www.montereyherald.com/ci_5831204

The League of Women Voters provides the following corrections:

LWV COMMENTS ON HERALD ANALYSIS OF GENERAL PLANS

1. Comment: Requires a countywide vote on any proposed change to the general plan.
   Response: Requires a countywide vote on proposed changes to the Initiative, not the General Plan. The CGPI only revises the Land Use and Housing Elements of the 1982 General Plan. Changes to the other elements would not require voter approval. Specifically, the Initiative requires a countywide vote on subdivisions in unincorporated areas outside of Community Areas, expansion of Community Area boundaries and change to designation of agricultural lands for development.
   
   
2. Comment: AMBAG's projections don't include numbers of new units projected but not built before 2005.
   Response: AMBAG's housing forecast for 2005 to 2030 is 8,664 units (40,006 to 48,670) Department of Finance estimates for 2005 units was 39,706 or 300 units less than the 2005 forecast. Since AMBAG expects that the difference will be achieved by 2030, the adjusted forecast is 8,964 units.
   
   
3. Comment: Wineries attempting to add process facilities and tasting rooms outside community areas could be subject to a countywide vote.
   Response: The CGPI will not substantially change existing zoning. Zoning regulations for grazing and farmland allow agricultural facilities such as wineries and tasting rooms. These facilities would not be subject to a countywide vote. The primary difference between the CGPI and GPU4 is that artisan wineries and tasting rooms would not be exempt from environmental review under the Initiative.
   
   
4. Comment: Allows subdivision of "important farmland" only for exclusive agricultural purposes as long as they are not detrimental to the agricultural viability of adjoining parcels.
   Response: A correct quote from GPU4 follows: "Subdivision of Important Farmland…shall be allowed only for exclusive agricultural purposes only or when demonstrated not to be detrimental to the agricultural viability of adjoining parcels." "Or" means that subdivision of farmland is allowed for development "when demonstrated not to be detrimental to the agricultural viability of adjoining parcels."
   
   
5. Comment: Projected city boundaries are significantly larger under the CGPI than GPU4.
   Response: While the CGPI will focus growth into existing urban areas, it is incorrect to assume that city boundaries will differ under either plan. For example, expansion of the City of Greenfield by 800 acres was recently approved by LAFCO. The City of Salinas has a pending annexation request for 3,000 acres. The Cities of Soledad and King City have requests to annex substantial acreage.
   
   
6. Comment: The analysis fails to address how long affordable housing would be available.
   Response: The CGPI requires that affordable housing be permanently available. In contrast, the Board of Supervisors has adopted in concept revisions to the County's Inclusionary Housing Ordinance that would assure affordability only for 15 years. While the Board still must take final action on proposed revisions, only the CGPI assures permanent affordability.

Senate Bill 46 is authored by the President pro Tem of the Senate, Don Perata. SB 46 stakes out a claim to the biggest single "pot" of money created by Proposition 1C, the Housing Bond, passed by the voters last November. Proposition 1C authorized the state to borrow (and then spend) $2.85 billion dollars to advance various housing programs. The $.85 billion was specified for "infill incentive grants for capital outlay related to infill housing development and other related infill development." In other words, this amount of money (the single biggest pot of money in the housing bond) is to help stimulate and support genuine "smart growth" development.

There are many bills that propose ways to spend this money. Senator Perata's bill borrows a good deal from a proposal advanced by Bay Area housing, social equity, and environmental groups, with assistance from the Planning and Conservation League. The Speaker of the Assembly, Fabian Núñez (with local Assembly Member John Laird as his co-author), has his own bill, Assembly Bill 1053. AB 1053 currently proposes to hold expenditures in abeyance, while studying how best to spend the money. I'll keep you posted. If we're lucky, the process will result in a real commitment to affordable housing, coupled with a strong commitment to genuine infill.

For KUSP, this is Gary Patton.

More Information

General Legislative Information
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/bilinfo.html

Text of Senate Bill 46
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/postquery?
bill_number=sb_46&sess=CUR&house=B&author=perata

Text of Assembly Bill 1053
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/postquery?
bill_number=ab_1053&sess=CUR&house=B&author=nunez

Yesterday, I mentioned that discussions on SB 46 and AB 1053 will ultimately lead to a specific proposal on how best to spend $.85 billion dollars to support "infill" housing and other infill development. The idea would be to promote growth within existing urban areas, instead of growth that perpetuates the patterns of sprawl that put both our agricultural economy and our natural resources at risk.

Today, let me tell you about another bill that addresses "smart growth." Senate Bill 375, authored by State Senator Darrell Steinberg, is proposing that regional transportation plans include what he calls a "preferred growth scenario." This preferred growth scenario would direct growth away from commercially productive agricultural land, and from habitat lands. Further, such a "preferred growth scenario" would have to establish a development pattern that would reduce VMT, or vehicle miles traveled, to help reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The bill, in other words, is proposing a link between transportation spending and a better pattern of growth and development.

So far, SB 375 is what legislators call a "work in progress," but it does promote on a state level what the voters in Santa Cruz County said in 1978: let's put our infrastructure money into projects that support smart growth, instead of subsidizing sprawl!

For KUSP, this is Gary Patton.

More Information

General Legislative Information
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/bilinfo.html

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

As I announced on Monday, the Association of Environmental Professionals will be hosting a free public forum at 7:30 p.m. this evening, in the Santa Lucia Room of the Salinas Community Center, 940 North Main Street in Salinas. The forum will explore the environmental impacts that can be expected from enactment of the Community General Plan initiative, on the one hand, or from the Board of Supervisors' General Plan proposal, the so-called GPU4, on the other. These alternative visions for the land use future of Monterey County will be up for voter decision on Tuesday, June 5th.

If you're a voter in Monterey County, and don't think you have enough information on this critical choice, I encourage your attendance at the forum this evening. There will be a presentation from Alana Knaster, Assistant Director of the Monterey County Resources Management Agency, and from Janet Brennan, speaking for the League of Women Voters of the Monterey Peninsula. These presentations will be followed by a panel discussion with Chris Fitz, Executive Director of LandWatch Monterey County, and Tom Carvey, Executive Director of Common Ground Monterey County.

LandWatch is one of eighteen local organizations sponsoring the Community General Plan initiative. Common Ground is supporting the County's document.

The June 5th election is critically important for the future of Monterey County. This evening, there's a chance to get involved, and get informed. Check below for more information.

For KUSP, this is Gary Patton.

More Information

California AEP Website
http://www.califaep.org/

Monterey Bay AEP Website
http://www.montereybayaep.org/.

For more information on the Forum contact Michael Zeller at 408-460-5856

"Yes on A" Websites, supporting the Community General Plan Initiative
http://www.montereyplan.org/pages/yesonA.html
http://www.landwatch.org

"No on A" Website, opposing the Community General Plan Initiative
http://www.montereycountyfarmbureau.org/

League of Women Voters Impartial Comparison
http://www.lwvmp.org/GPcomps.html

Rancho San Juan Opposition Coalition
http://www.stopranchosanjuan.org/index.html

Commentary by Brian Brennan, "The Lettuce Curtain?"
http://www.montereyherald.com/opinion/ci_5726348

The KION Fight For The Future Series
http://www.kion46.com/content/
fightforthefuture/default.aspx

The Marks Ranch is right next to Toro Park, just off Highway 68. Toro Park is one of Monterey County's most heavily used parks, and though it's just minutes from downtown Salinas, it definitely has an "out in the country" feel. Despite the "feel," the entire Highway 68 corridor is under intense development pressure, and most recently, that pressure came to bear on the Marks Ranch.

Marks Ranch is right "over the hill" from a development called Las Palmas, one of those rural subdivisions that are allowed by the current Monterey County General Plan, and that the Community General Plan Initiative would prohibit. In fact, if you want to get a graphic view of the difference between the Community General Plan and GPU4, check out the Las Palmas development along River Road. This is the kind of development that GPU4 thinks is ok, and that the Community General Plan Initiative thinks is "not ok."

The developers of Las Palmas had their sights set on moving onto the Marks Ranch, but it isn't going to happen. First, LandWatch Monterey County organized such an effective citizen effort to prevent the development of Marks Ranch that the developer and the Board of Supervisors backed away. Second, the Big Sur Land Trust came in to broker a deal to acquire the Marks Ranch, and that deal has just been concluded.

Check the transcript of today's Land Use Report to see how you can take a walk on the Marks Ranch, and see what's been saved.

For KUSP, this is Gary Patton.

More Information

Big Sur Land Trust Website
http://www.bigsurlandtrust.org/

Big Sur Land Trust Spring Outings List
http://www.bigsurlandtrust.org/index1.html

The Big Sur Land Trust is sponsoring several walks on the Marks Ranch, on May 26th, June 24th, and July 29th. You should contact the Big Sur Land Trust for more information on how you can participate.