Today is the official end to the summer recess of the California State Legislature. This year, of course, the recess didn’t go exactly as planned (at least for members of the State Senate). It turned out to be virtually impossible for the Senate to get the two-thirds vote on the budget that our State Constitution requires.

Twenty-five Democratic Party Senators and Republican State Senator Abel Maldonado (who represents a good portion of the Central Coast) voted “yes” on the budget bill, but you need twenty-seven votes.

The Republicans have largely operated under rigorous party control. The Republicans have a “rule of eight,” which means that all Republican State Senators are supposed to do what a majority of the Republicans say, no matter what their personal position might be. Senator Maldonado defied that “unwritten commandment,” and extreme right wing members of his party are, thus, apparently, going to try to drive him from office at the next election. At least that was the threat.

One thing that Senator Maldonado refused to do, that the majority of the Republican Senators wanted him to do, was to demand that the California Environmental Quality Act be eviscerated, as to its relationship to global warming, as the “price” of a vote for the budget. If you’d like to learn more about that controversy, in which Republican members of the State Senate (Senator Maldonado excepted) were carrying water for the oil and development lobby, check out the references in the transcript of today’s Land Use Report.

For KUSP, this is Gary Patton.

More Information

The Republicans’ Case Statement
http://republican.sen.ca.gov/opeds/
31/oped4019.asp

Capitol Weekly Commentary on the CEQA-Budget debate
http://www.capitolweekly.net/opinion/
article.html?article_id=1643

My analysis in the California Progress Report
http://www.californiaprogressreport.com/
2007/08/ceqa_global_war.html

The oil and development lobby letter that kicked off the campaign to modify CEQA, to eliminate its ability to address global warming issues (and my response) can be seen on the PCL Website
http://www.pcl.org/newsroom/
062707bizattackonceqa.html

State law requires each local general plan to include a “Safety Element,” to address potential hazards. Typically, the Safety Element needs to evaluate potential flood, landslide, wildfire, and earthquake hazards, among others, whenever any of these might be a potential problem.

The State law is not, however, very directive in terms of hazard mitigation. Just as state law requires each local government to have a “Conservation Element,” but doesn’t specify what lands need to be conserved, the requirements for a “Safety Element” in the local general plan don’t actually mean that developers won’t be allowed to build new subdivisions in flood prone areas, as one example.

The lack of strong state law standards is why the Monterey County Board of Supervisors can seriously consider adopting policies that would let developers pave over the productive farmlands of the Salinas Valley. These are the most economically productive farmlands in the nation, and you’d think that the state would require them to be protected. But it really doesn’t; it’s up to the locals to make the call. Similarly, despite the requirement that each general plan contain a Safety Element, many local governments allow developers to build new subdivisions within floodplains, or in places where wildfires are common.

If you’re interested in the topic of hazard mitigation, I’ve provided some informative links on the KUSP website. One of them is to the state’s new draft Hazard Mitigation Plan.

For KUSP, this is Gary Patton.

More Information

State Office of Emergency Services
http://www.oes.ca.gov/Operational/
OESHome.nsf/1?OpenForm

Hazard mitigation references
http://hazardmitigation.oes.ca.gov/

Draft of State Hazard Mitigation Plan
http://hazardmitigation.oes.ca.gov/plan/state_multi-hazard_mitigation_plan_shmp

The following bills are all pending in the State Legislature, and relate to flood hazards. You can get information on any of these bills at http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/.

• AB 5 (Wolk)
• AB 70 (Jones)
• AB 156 (Laird)
• AB 162 (Wolk)
• AB 224 (Wolk)
• SB 5 (Machado)
• SB 276 (Steinberg)
• SB 378 (Steinberg)

How we use the land is mainly determined at the local level, either by our locally-elected representatives or by the community at large, as we act through the initiative and referendum process.

State level decisions also have an impact on land use. While state law is not as directive as it might be, the framework for all of our local land use decisions is set out in the state’s Planning and Zoning Law, which requires each local government to adopt, and then follow, a local General Plan.

The federal level of government also has an impact on land use. The federal highway program, the Endangered Species Act, the Clean Air Act, and other similar federal legislation, including the Farm Bill, profoundly affect how we use the land.

Congress member Sam Farr, who represents the Central Coast, is going to be holding a Town Hall tomorrow, on Thursday, August 23rd, starting at about 6:30 p.m. at the Santa Cruz Vets Hall, located right next to the Post Office in downtown Santa Cruz.

I’d encourage listeners to attend the Town Hall with Sam, and after talking about the War in Iraq, and health care, and other critical issues at the federal level, why not ask Sam how our federal government can help prevent the kind of destructive sprawl that is putting our farms and natural areas in such peril, and that is creating a lifestyle built on the long distance commute, debilitating to body and soul alike?

For KUSP, this is Gary Patton.

I usually like to highlight upcoming actions affecting land use, to give KUSP listeners a chance to get involved themselves in the kind of land use decisions that will shape their future. Make no mistake, our land use decisions do have a profound impact on the future of our communities, and affect not only the natural environment, but also our local economy, and our success in reaching our social equity goals. “Environment, Economy, and Equity” are the “Three E’s” of land use policy. Failure to pay attention to what’s happening in the land use arena is a sure prescription for social, economic, and environmental underachievement.

Today, I thought I’d just provide a kind of “pot pourri” of recent land use items, looking backwards instead of ahead, to give some examples of the kind of decisions that will affect our future:

·       In San Jose, the Coyote Valley development plan was put on indefinite hold, while more overall planning takes precedence.

·       In Marina, the City Council has raised its public facilities impact fees, to help pay for the costs of providing transportation, water, recreation, safety and other services to new developments.

·       In Santa Cruz County, the Board of Supervisors took action to prevent sham conversions of mobile home parks.

·       In San Benito County, controversy is heating up over a possible modification of a citizen-adopted growth management initiative.

My advice: don’t let decisions like these get made without your input!

For KUSP, this is Gary Patton.

State Senator Darrell Steinberg (who represents the Sacramento area) is carrying the most important land use bill now pending at the state level. I’m providing you with a reference to the bill in the transcript of today’s Land Use Report. You can find that on the KUSP website.

Senate Bill 375 is intended to create a process that will result in more compact development patterns than the sprawl patterns of development now most common throughout virtually every part of California. The concept is that regional transportation agencies would have to adopt, and then implement, what the bill calls “preferred growth scenarios.” Preferred growth scenarios would have to accomplish at least three major objectives: first, provide adequate land for housing for all segments of the population; second, steer development away from productive farm lands and important natural resource lands; third, meet standards to be set by the State Air Resources Board, to reduce VMT, or “vehicle miles traveled,” in connection with our efforts to combat global warming.

No funding would be allowed for any transportation project that is not determined to be “consistent” with the preferred growth scenario. Local governments that have general plans that are consistent would get some additional benefits.

This bill is an indirect way to start “growing smarter.” Stay tuned, it’s facing very significant opposition!

For KUSP, this is Gary Patton.

More Information

Information on SB 375 at the LegInfo Website
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/