Maidu Group
El Dorado County
February 12, 2004
February 3, 2004
What is Measure G?
Measure G is an attempt, without precedent in California, to adopt an entire
general plan for the County of El Dorado by a vote of the people. The process
for developing a new general plan now underway by the County produced twelve
alternatives, four of which (Alternatives 1, 2, 3, and 4) were analyzed in
detail in the EIR. Measure G circumvents this process.
In our comments on the draft EIR, the Maidu Group urged using Alternative 12 as
the base plan to which to add selected features of other plans. (All comment
letters may be read on the
County’s web site. Our reason
for doing so is that Alternative 12 calls for compact development. It seems to
us the only one that begins to back away from the automobile-dependent sprawl
that is at the root of so many of our problems, including traffic.
Backers of Measure G, however, chose as their base plan Alternative 4, the
general plan adopted in 1996 and invalidated by the court for failure accurately
to disclose all effects in the EIR. Alternative 4, like all the alternatives
being considered by the County, had to be modified to include Measure Y, the
Control Traffic Congestion initiative adopted by the voters in 1998, and to
include an updated Housing Element. (Periodic update of this element is
required by state law.)
In making this selection, backers of Measure G have chosen the plan with the
highest growth (see graph ), the most traffic congestion,
the highest cost to implement, the worst effects on air pollution, and the most
overall adverse effects on quality of life.
We have heard many reports that the initiative itself was not available to see
at the time signatures were being gathered for the petition to put it on the
ballot. This isn’t surprising because the plan itself is over 300 pages long,
not counting large-format, detailed land-use maps. Voters won’t be seeing the
text of the initiative in the voters’ handbook either. The cost of printing and
distributing it to all voters is too great.
Who’s paying for this effort?
Who paid for gathering signatures to put this measure on the ballot and for
producing campaign material that we all should be getting in our mailboxes?
Let’s look at the campaign finance disclosure forms filed with the County’s
Elections department.
The proponent has said he was 'hired' by the Business Alliance to develop and
qualify the petition to put Measure G on the ballot. The Business Alliance
comprises the Building Industry Association, the El Dorado Builders’ Exchange,
the El Dorado County Joint Chambers of Commerce, the El Dorado Forum, the El
Dorado County Association of Realtors, and SAGE (Surveyors, Architects,
Geologists, and Engineers). It is our understanding, however, that not all of
these entities are supporting Measure G.
The group formed to support Measure G was organized September 12, 2003, under
the name El Dorado Citizens for Responsible Planning. (This name violates FPPC
regulation 18450.3, which requires that a ballot measure committee name must
include reference to supporting or opposing the specific ballot measure.) Signed
petitions were submitted to the Elections Department on October 1, 2003 (the
cover letter made no mention of Citizens for Responsible Planning or any other
group). The petition was certified by Elections on 10/21/2003. Through
1/17/2004, Citizens for Responsible Planning has reported the following monetary
contributions (smaller contributions totaled $1045):
Other points of interest:
On 10/1/2003, Bruce Ashwill gave $15,000 to 'YES ON MEASURE Z' (see above).
On 10/9/2003, Bruce and Barbara Ashwill gave $10,000 to EL DORADO BUILDERS’
EXCHANGE.
Some of the contributors to the REPUBLICAN CENTRAL COMMITTEE during this period
were:
Primary expenditures during the reporting period were for polling ($15,000, with
$3000 still due), legal services ($3865.33), printing petitions ($6,179.38), and
petition circulating ($21,516.75).
9/12/2003
$12,000
(Part of funds remaining in the account of 'Yes on Measure
Z', a group opposing Measure Y. This committee had received a total of some $155,000 in
monetary and non-monetary contributions from donors that read like a who’s who
of the development industry.)
10/1/2003
$17,000
(Also from 'Yes on Measure Z')
10/21/2003
$11,000
(From the El Dorado Builders’ Exchange)
11/10/2003
$10,000
(From the Republican Central Committee)
January 15, 2004
Funds are urgently needed by the coalition working to defeat Measure G.
Send Contributions to 'No on Measure G' , 461 Morgan Court, El Dorado
Hills, CA 95672.
Time is critical: Many in the county vote by mail, making the critical
date much earlier than March 2.
Measure G would adopt the old 1996 General Plan, as changed to include
provisions of Measure K (the Control Traffic Initiative from 1998) and
to update the Housing Element as required by state law. The proponent
says he was 'hired' by the Business Alliance. Campaign finance filings
show that money has come mostly from the Builders' Exchange and a who's
who of developer interests.
With minor changes, Measure G is
Alternative 4 of the twelve now being
considered for a new general plan. (See graph below.) The Final Environmental
Impact Report on these will be out any day. Alternative 4 (Measure G)
allows the most growth, the most traffic congestion, the most cost to
implement, and the most air pollution. A general plan adopted by
initiative must still conform to law. The Draft EIR admitted that
Alternative 4 violated air quality regulations. If adopted as the
general plan, Alternative 4 may trigger federal sanctions in El Dorado
County and the entire Sacramento metropolitan region. Adopting an entire
general plan by vote of the people hasnever before been done in
California. It is a bad idea for many reasons. With certain exceptions,
any later changes will also have to be made by vote of the people. The
County Counsel says Measure G is likely to cause many problems. It is
not likely to reduce legal challenges as its backers claim.
Please refer to the County Counsel's Report on Measure G Initiative at:
http://www.co.el-dorado.ca.us/counsel.html and
The U.S. Forest Service announced it would triple logging in the Sierra Nevada as part of a fire prevention strategy. They said the changes to step up forest thinning would lessen the threat of forest fires. Logging levels will raise to 330 million board-feet of green timber a year, three times what is now allowed. That is less than half the amount cut during the peak years of commercial logging. The Forest Service was unhappy with the environmental regulations and the latest plan permits not only the removal of far more trees but ones up to 30 inches in diameter in old-growth stands. It loosens habitat protections for rare species. Last year, the administration won passage of legislation relaxing standards it said had hampered timber cutting in Western forests dense with fire-ready growth. The new plan was criticized by environmentalists who criticized the plan for casting aside research on sustainable logging levels that the Clinton administration spent years and millions of dollars to produce.
"We just threw all that work out the window," said Craig Thomas of the Sierra Nevada Forest Protection Campaign. Forest Service biologists said they were aware of no scientific justification for weakening the Clinton-era standards.
Others noted the Forest Service had retreated from promises that 75% of logging would occur near communities vulnerable to wildfires to 50%. Timber cutting plummeted in the 1990s, out of concern for the California spotted owl. The Clinton plan reduced logging even further and created 4 million acres of old-growth reserves that effectively ended commercial logging on those lands. The California Forestry Assn. feels that the Forest Service has recognized the most significant challenge they have to deal with is catastrophic fire, and they have laid out a strategy to deal with that. The Forest Service is obligated to conserve wildlife, but it must address the risk of wildfire and its impacts to communities and wildlife. One UCLA biology professor said: :Allowing trees to be cut up to 30 inches is really going to dramatically change the old-growth process."
http://www.co.el-dorado.ca.us/CountyCounsel/MeasureGreport_ExhibitA.pdf
U.S. to Triple Logging in Sierra
Los Angeles Times ... January 23, 2004