PCL Insider: News from the Capitol

SO THERE WE WERE...STRANGE BILLS, STRANGER BEDFELLOWS

Last week in a hearing of the Senate Transportation and Housing Committee, several environmental organizations, including yours truly, experienced the amazing power that a diverse and unified coalition can have when we join together to protect California's environment. 
                          
That day, the committee pondered the fate of SB 670 (Correa), which sought to limit the use of real estate transfer fees. Recently, these fees have helped to ensure the preservation of valuable wild land in the face of sprawling development.

Correa and his supporters were facing quite an uphill battle with their bill, which initially sought to outlaw the use of transfer fees altogether. Even after significant amendments that would have allowed the fee to continue with numerous new restrictions, the bill's proponents still faced a unique and frankly surprising coalition opposed to his measure, including environmental organizations like PCL and the California Building Industry Association. What?!? The BIA? The "Builders?" Has global warming changed weather patterns in Hades?

Yes, the folks listed in the "oppose" column for most of our bills, also want to ensure this important tool can continue to be used to fund environmental mitigation for development projects.
 
It didn't take long to see that we were by no means alone. Not a single committee member spoke in favor of SB 670.  The Democrats, like the environmentalists, thought the measure was far too constricting. The Republicans opposed the fee entirely and would have much preferred the bill in its original form.  To add insult to injury (and a bit of levity to the proceedings), one senator even commented that the supporters of the bill had been "pantsed"!  In an almost unheard of outcome, SB 670 died in committee for lack of a motion. 
 
The high drama (and high jinks), however, does not end there. 

Earlier this session, Republican Assemblymember Guy Houston introduced AB 1574, which also seeks to sets boundaries on the use of real estate transfer fees. The BIA is sponsoring AB 1574, which unlike Correa's bill, would simply prohibit the transfer fees from being abused for financial gain, the chief complaint of those supporting SB 670. PCL and several other organizations are supporting AB 1574 in its current form and will continue to follow the situation closely.

Woody Allen once said eighty percent of success is just showing up. Perhaps the other twenty percent is who sits down next to you to testify.

Stay tuned for more strange bills and stranger bedfellows...

HOT FROM THE OVEN: STRATEGY FOR RESTORATION OF THE CARMEL RIVER WATERSHED

The PCL Foundation (PCLF) is pleased to announce its latest culinary masterpiece – we've pulled together a recipe for restoration of a key component of California's central coast, Southern Monterey County's Carmel River.

PCLF's tasty Supplemental Carmel River Watershed Action Plan identifies two key elements of a successful strategy to restore the Carmel River: the removal of the antiquated San Clemente Dam, and a reduction in water diversions from the river.

• Removal of the San Clemente Dam would ensure public safety; the structure was declared seismically unsafe over a decade ago. Removal would also help to restore the connection of the Carmel River with its floodplain, wetland areas and lagoon. 
• Reducing the amount of water pumped from the river would help to restore the natural flow patterns essential to area flora and fauna. 

Together, these actions will allow the river to better sustain wildlife, including the state and federally-listed populations of central coast steelhead trout and California red-legged frogs. 
 
PCLF has been working for several years with local community organizations and resource agencies to develop this viable restoration strategy for the Carmel River Watershed. 

And the Watershed Action Plan comes at a critical time for Monterey County.

Last year, the Army Corps of Engineers and the California Department of Water Resources issued a draft San Clemente Dam Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement (EIR/EIS) that considered several "fixes" to the dam problem, including dam buttressing (a "solution" only to the seismic safety issues) and rerouting the river to allow for removal of the dam, (a true solution that addresses both safety and environmental concerns). 

The final draft is expected to be released in June 2007.

With a final EIR/EIS in hand that compares various project alternatives, and the Watershed Action Plan providing a roadmap for a healthy watershed, interested parties will finally be able to objectively weigh various options and determine the fate of the San Clemente Dam.  PCLF looks forward to working with the diverse interests represented to come to an agreement that appropriately balances the needs of the environment, ratepayers, and investors.
 
For an electronic copy of the Supplemental Carmel River Watershed Action Plan or a scrumptious hot "Carmel" sundae, please e-mail Dr. Monica Hunter.

THE GOSPEL OF ENGAGEMENT: PATTON SPREADS THE GOOD WORD ON NATIONAL PUBLIC RADIO

You'd think that our Executive Director Gary Patton would have enough to do heading up both PCL and our sister organization, the Planning and Conservation League Foundation.

Well, you'd be right.

Nevertheless, Patton also produces a weekday radio show, called "The Land Use Report" which airs as a local segment during NPR's Morning Edition, each weekday morning on Central Coast public radio station KUSP (88.9 FM in Santa Cruz/Monterey).

Patton's program covers all things related to land use, and he frequently announces his "unhidden agenda" to stimulate greater citizen participation in government.

Here's a quote from an upcoming Land Use Report, where Patton preaches the gospel of engagement:

My experience is that citizen participation really does make a difference, and that land use is at the center of virtually everything we do. Our economy, and environment, and how successful we are in reaching our social equity goals, are all dependent on the land use policy choices we make.

Land use decisions are community decisions, too, since individuals don't, generally, have a right to do whatever they want. Think of it this way: If you need a permit to do something, that means you need to get permission from the larger community. You don't have a right to do it unless that permission is granted.

As we all know, we do need to get a permit to add on to our home, or to convert it from residential to another use, or to convert farmland to some other use, or to subdivide our property, or?you get the idea. The fact is that land use policy decisions, which determine who gets permission to do what, are community decisions. Since the use of land affects all of us, we all get to be involved in making the decisions.

However, we get to be involved only if we choose to become involved. Nothing compels you to take an interest in the decisions that will profoundly affect your future. Democracy is an opportunity, not a requirement. Those with individual gains to be made are definitely working the system. But what about you?

Land use activists in Modesto got to hear Patton's message in person earlier this week. And thanks to the wonders of the internet, you can hear it too - wherever you are. Look for the Land Use Report at www.kusp.org.