Final action by the Monterey County Board of Supervisors on General Plan Update #5 can't take place until the environmental review process is complete. As I reported earlier, the Board had hoped to do everything necessary in time to allow the current Board to vote on the plan by the end of this calendar year. Were that possible, current Board Member Ila Mettee-McCutchon, who has always been pretty friendly to development interests, would have been able to cast a decisive vote. Come January, Mettee-McCutchon will be replaced by Supervisor-elect Jane Parker, who is likely to be more sympathetic to environmental and "smart growth" perspectives.

At any rate, it now appears that the required environmental review of the proposed revision of the Monterey County General Plan will definitively not be completed in time to allow final Board action this year. It seems that final action on the General Plan Update, which began in 1999, may be taken sometime in February of 2009. That's a pretty astounding ten-year time period!

One reason more time is needed is that the County has decided to give serious attention to the possible global warming impacts of their land use policies. Doing appropriate environmental review of that topic does require more time.

You can get more information from the links contained in the transcript for today's Land Use Report. And, I'll talk more about this topic, tomorrow, too.

For KUSP, this is Gary Patton.

More Information

Monterey County General Plan Website
http://www.co.monterey.ca.us/planning/gpu/
GPU_2007/gpu_2007.htm

KSBW: General Plan Goes Green
http://www.ksbw.com/news/17967756/detail.html

Salinas Californian Article: Flurry of "Green Rules"
http://www.thecalifornian.com/apps/pbcs.dll
/article?AID=2008811130318

Herald Article: Plan Requires Cut in Emissions
http://www.montereyherald.com/search/
ci_10972501?IADID=Search-www.montereyherald.com
-www.montereyherald.com

As mentioned yesterday, it is going to take longer than was previously expected for the Monterey County Board of Supervisors to take final action on its long-awaited General Plan Update. One reason is that the County staff is now proposing that the new General Plan address the global warming impacts of the land use policy decisions contained in the Plan. The Salinas Californian newspaper described this effort as "loading up the Plan with a flurry of green rules." Other news reports indicated that at least one member of the County's Planning Commission thought that these "green rules" might be a "deal breaker," undoing the growing consensus on what the General Plan Update should contain.

Attorney General Jerry Brown wants state and local governmental agencies to take seriously the global warming crisis. He would definitely counsel the County not to ignore what might seem like a "late breaking" topic. You can review the Attorney General's advice to other governmental agencies by going to his global warming webpage, a link to which is found in the transcript for today's Land Use Report. You'll find that the Attorney General, the State's highest-ranking law enforcement officer, believes that state and local governments are legally required to take global warming into account as they make land use policy decisions. The County staff's advice to the Board of Supervisors, in other words, to address global warming issues in the General Plan, is right on target!

For KUSP, this is Gary Patton.

More Information

Attorney General Jerry Brown Global Warming Website
http://ag.ca.gov/globalwarming/

Monterey County General Plan Website
http://www.co.monterey.ca.us/planning/
gpu/GPU_2007/gpu_2007.htm

KSBW: General Plan Goes Green
http://www.ksbw.com/news/17967756/detail.html

Salinas Californian Article: Flurry of "Green Rules"
http://www.thecalifornian.com/apps/pbcs.dll/
article?AID=2008811130318

Herald Article: Plan Requires Cut in Emissions
http://www.montereyherald.com/search/
ci_10972501?IADID=Search-www.montereyherald.com
-www.montereyherald.com

AB 32, the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, makes a commitment on behalf of all Californians that we will take the individual and collective actions necessary to roll back our greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2020. The legal regulations that will actually achieve this rollback are not going to go into effect until January 2012. Our very serious policy commitment to roll back emissions, in other words, will actually begin only after a lengthy and very deliberative rulemaking process.

An important step in that rulemaking process will take place tomorrow, as the Air Resources Board holds a public hearing to consider a proposed "Scoping Plan." The "Scoping Plan" outlines the methods that the Air Resources Board plans to use to achieve the required emissions reductions. You can find out more from the transcript for today's Land Use Report, and I've attached to the transcript an excerpt from my own letter to the ARB.

Global Warming is not just an "inconvenience." We face a human-caused challenge to the continued existence of human life as we know it. The perils are so great that we should not be self-congratulatory, even though we are providing great leadership on the global warming issue. The Draft Scoping Plan doesn't propose to do much to combat the sprawling land use patterns that cause so much of our global warming problem. I think it should!

For KUSP, this is Gary Patton.

More Information

California Air Resources Board Website
http://www.arb.ca.gov/homepage.htm

The AB 32 Scoping Plan
http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/
document/scopingplandocument.htm

ARB Agenda for the November 20, 2008 hearing
http://www.arb.ca.gov/board/ma/2008/ma112008.htm

Excerpt From Letter to ARB on the AB 32 Scoping Plan

November 17, 2008

Mary Nichols, Chair
California Air Resources Board
1001 I Street
Sacramento, CA 95814

RE: Comments on Climate Change Proposed Scoping Plan

Dear Ms. Nichols and Members of the Board:

Global warming is more than "inconvenient." We face a human-caused challenge to the continued existence of human life as we know it. Global warming puts the natural environment in great peril, but our human economic and political institutions are in even greater danger. While we tend to think of global warming in "linear" terms, in which we anticipate slowly escalating world temperatures, the facts are most probably otherwise. Uncontrollable positive feedback processes will quickly transform world climate in incredibly adverse ways if we reach certain "tipping points." Significant releases of trapped methane, caused by the loss of permafrost, and the loss of artic ice, opening up new areas of ocean for heat absorption, can profoundly change global temperatures, with horribly adverse results. And these changes can come upon us rapidly, within decades. Dr. James E. Hansen, and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, have been quoted as saying that we must significantly curtail greenhouse gas emissions by no later than 2016 to avoid a climate catastrophe.

In view of the enormity of the global warming challenge, we should be proud that AB 32 has made a commitment, on behalf of all Californians, that we will actually roll back the emission of greenhouse gases in this state. We cannot afford, however, to be self-congratulatory. I am urging the Air Resources Board to infuse an increased sense of urgency into the Scoping Plan.

Business as usual is a prescription for disaster. I believe that if we can do something to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, then we must do it, and we must act at the earliest possible time. In World War II, facing a different type of challenge to the continued existence of human civilization, the United States made fundamental changes in its economy in about two years time. We need to do the same now. We need, in other words, to require ourselves to take prompt action, not just say it would be a good idea – and not just hope that "the market," or "incentives," will somehow make it happen.

There is a LAFCO (or "Local Agency Formation Commission") in every California County. LAFCO is one of the most powerful, and least well-known, governmental agencies whose decisions affect land use.

The Santa Cruz County LAFCO recently took action on a citizen petition, which asked the Commission to approve a new Fire Protection District for the Bonny Doon area. Rural areas, like Bonny Doon, do sometimes have their own Fire Protection Districts. If a rural area does not have its own Fire Protection District, it usually receives fire protection from the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, often called "CalFire." CalFire provides such fire protection services under contract with the County.

The residents of Bonny Doon pay a County Service Area charge for the fire protection they currently receive. They wanted LAFCO to let them stop paying that charge, and to pay a property tax to their own, newly-created Fire Protection District. LAFCO concluded that this might reduce fire protection in other rural areas, though increasing fire protection in Bonny Doon, so LAFCO turned down the Bonny Doon request.

The laws governing LAFCO provide for the "reconsideration" of almost any LAFCO decision, upon request from an interested person. If you want to see an interesting example of a LAFCO in action, mark your calendar for December 8th, when the Santa Cruz County LAFCO will reconsider the Bonny Doon Fire Protection District issue.

For KUSP, this is Gary Patton.

More Information

Santa Cruz County LAFCO Website
http://www.santacruzlafco.org/

Public Hearing Notice
http://www.santacruzlafco.org/pages/notices.html

Last Tuesday, the Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors considered several important land use policy items. Among other things, the Board considered revisions to the procedures that will be used when interested persons appeal various administrative level decisions relating to building and land use matters. The Board's agenda also contained a proposed rezoning, general plan amendment, riparian exception, roadway/roadside exception, and a Planned Unit Development Permit for property on Aptos Rancho Road, to permit higher-density residential development on that particular parcel. Just as a tip, whenever you see a governmental body considering "exceptions" and general plan amendments, in connection with a development permit application, you know that somebody is making an effort to authorize a development that doesn't really meet the current rules and regulations, and general plan policies.

The Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors also set a couple of public hearings for December 9th, and I'd like to give you advance notice, so you can mark your calendars if you're interested. On Tuesday, December 9th, the Board will consider a very significant rezoning and general plan amendment affecting the so-called "Nigh Property," located along Soquel Drive in Live Oak. The Board will also hold a public hearing on that day on a proposal to build a hotel in the Seacliff area. If you're interested, there is more information at www.kusp.org.

For KUSP, this is Gary Patton.

More Information

Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors Agenda, November 18th (See Agenda Items #42 and #43)
http://sccounty01.co.santa-cruz.ca.us/bds/Govstream/ASP
/Display/SCCB_AgendaDisplayWeb.asp?MeetingDate=11/18/2008