Apr 14, 2013
04-11-2013 • Post Sustainability Institute
From Rosa Koire:
We need your help here in the San Francisco Bay Area.
The regional plan, called PLAN BAY AREA, although it is nearly identical to every other regional plan in the United States, has some additional elements that we believe will be used as a template for the rest of the country. See our flyer for details.
This is so serious that we are launching a legal challenge against PLAN BAY AREA, the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MTC), and the Council of Government (ABAG).
PLAN BAY AREA was drafted with the assistance of ICLEI and is our Agenda 21 Sustainable Communities Strategy here in the Bay Area.
Michael Shaw of Freedom Advocates and I have hired lawyers to write legal objections to the plan in preparation for a lawsuit. This will be a major constitutional challenge. We will need funds to file the suit and to stay in the game. We’ll be up against a Goliath–we are ‘David.’
The Post Sustainability Institute is a 501 c4 non-profit. Donations are not tax deductible. All donations will be used for this legal challenge.
For more information please read our flyer and see the map. Click here for the link to PLAN BAY AREA.
HISTORIC LAWSUIT AGAINST UN AGENDA 21
The Post Sustainability Institute / Democrats Against UN Agenda 21 and Freedom Advocates are launching a legal challenge to PLAN BAY AREA/ONE BAY AREA (click for a pdf of the Plan) PLAN BAY AREA is an aggressive implementation of UN Agenda 21′s “islands of human habitation.” We believe that Priority Development Areas are the new wave of implementation of UN Agenda 21 in regional plans. This prototype, when adopted in the San Francisco Bay Area, could then move across the United States. We need your help to fight this. DONATE.
PLAN BAY AREA is an all-encompassing land use and transportation plan that regionalizes all 9 counties and 101 cities of the San Francisco Bay Area by limiting new construction to specific locations (only 4% of the land area) and requiring high density development: more apartments and condos on top of shops. If cities want federal and state transportation dollars they will have to agree to this Sustainable Communities Strategies plan.
PLAN BAY AREA is UN AGENDA 21. ICLEI WORKED ON CREATING THIS PLAN.
PLAN BAY AREA violates both the 5th and 14th amendments to the U.S. Constitution. The 5th amendment guarantees property owners the right to just compensation, and the 14th amendment guarantees equal protection.
PLAN BAY AREA violates voter-approved urban growth boundary ordinances. Even though voters all over the Bay Area have voted to determine where their urban growth boundaries should be, PLAN BAY AREA actually nullifies these boundaries by restricting development to very small locations in just some cities. The plan dictates that 80% of future residential and 66% of future commercial development must be built in these Priority Development Areas. If you own property, any property whether it’s a house or an office building, outside of the PLAN BAY AREA 4% Priority Development Area you may not be able to add a granny unit, add on to your building, or develop your lot. PLAN BAY AREA is valid for 25 years! Radical building restrictions lasting for over a generation will cripple land value and your ability to start and maintain your business or residential plans. For a pdf of the MAP please click here–orange areas are Priority Development Areas.
Reported by Donna Hanock
Apr 7, 2013
Others say U.N. land-use blueprint having no impact
Thursday, March 28, 2013
By TIM HEARDEN
QUINCY, Calif. — Carol Viscarra doesn’t consider herself a political activist, but Agenda 21 caught her attention.
The cattle, hay and vegetable producer from the Indian Valley near here is also an emergency-room nurse, so she doesn’t have much time to “bounce around the county addressing regulatory boards,” she said.
But battles over water from a stream that feeds her 450-acre ranch have taken Viscarra on a journey of research that led her to fight a proposed update of Plumas County’s general plan, which she believes could slowly destroy private property rights.
“I am an American,” she told the county planning commission recently, “and I believe that one of the primary pillars upon which rests our most fundamental freedoms as Americans is private property rights.”
Viscarra and some of her neighbors assert the updated plan closely mirrors Agenda 21, a United Nations document that’s drawn fire from some landowners and activists in the West who fear it’s behind a planned depopulation of rural areas.
“It is a global plan that is implemented locally, one city and one county at a time,” Viscarra said in prepared remarks.
Adopted at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, in 1992 and reaffirmed last year, the more than 300-page Agenda 21 advises governments in a variety of areas having to do with what it calls “sustainable development.” The far-reaching document includes sections on combating poverty, changing consumption patterns, protecting air quality and promoting human health.
But in a chapter devoted to agriculture and rural development, Agenda 21 calls for “increasing production on land already in use and … avoiding further encroachment on land that is only marginally suitable for cultivation.”
Further, the document decries “inappropriate and uncontrolled land uses,” which it calls “a major cause of degradation and depletion of land resources.”
Agenda 21 urges governments to “collect, continuously monitor, update and disseminate information … on the utilization of natural resources” and to “establish agricultural planning bodies at national and local levels” to set priorities for land use.
Mar 12, 2013
Be sure to read this to the end!
The Washington Post
The Arctic Ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in some places the seals are finding the water too hot, according to a report to the Commerce Department yesterday from Consulafft, at Bergen, Norway
Reports from fishermen, seal hunters, and explorers all point to a radical change in climate conditions and hitherto unheard-of temperatures in the Arctic zone. Exploration expeditions report that scarcely any ice has been met as far north as 81 degrees 29 minutes.
Soundings to a depth of 3,100 meters showed the gulf stream still very warm. Great masses of ice have been replaced by moraines of earth and stones, the report continued, while at many points well known glaciers have entirely disappeared.
Very few seals and no white fish are found in the eastern Arctic, while vast shoals of herring and smelts which have never before ventured so far north, are being encountered in the old seal fishing grounds. Within a few years it is predicted that due to the ice melt the sea will rise and make most coastal cities uninhabitable.
* * * * * * * * *
I apologize, I neglected to mention that this information was from November 2, 1922, as reported by the AP and published in The WASHINGTON POST- over 90 years ago. It appeared on Page 2 of the POST.
Feb 24, 2013
The voice of freedom radio has for the past month informed our audience to the FACT that the Sierra Nevada Conservency and the Sierra Nevada Alliance is apart of Agenda 21 backed-up and supported by the California Dept of Water Resources.
On July 17/18 2012 , in Kings Beach, CA these two enviro groups united in message and part of Agenda 21 was consulting on ways to fund water projects such as the Pitt River I.R.W.M.’S
Katie Burdick & Company was hired by a rancher in McARTHUR … DID HE KNOW WHAT AGENGA 21 WAS ?
DID HE CARE ?
I have asked some ranchers and their answer is they just want to farm and need water.
My question of that is HOW IS KATIE BURDIC, AN ENVIRO, GOING TO GET FARMERS / RANCHERS MORE WATER?
It seems when Burdick leaves afer the project is complete all of a sudden dams put in and built to help all forms of life both human and animal are sued, because it does’nt fit into the enviro Agenda 21.
Her foot print is in the Yuba River the leader in the C.A.B.Y. FORUM SHE LED.
The enviros are suing to take out two damns one is the Englebrite – that’s on the lower Yuba river.
At the enviro meeting in July last year there were 3 people at the head table: one was JIM BRENHAM head of the SIERRA NEVADA CONSERVANCY and GARY BARDINI who the deputy director of Calif Water Resources was the guest speaker.
Mr Bardini informed a large audiance that the I.R.W.M. PROJECTS was a diective from the UNITED NATIONS to the FEDS and they didn’t know how to implement it, so the feds gave it to the states and all of the enviro groups need to sell the program to the public.
MY FRIEND ATTENDED THAT MEETING. AND WE BROADCASTED THIS MESSAGE ON kcfj 570 A.M. ON FEB 23, AT 12 NOON FOR THE PEOPLE TO HEAR and make up their own minds to what’s taking place in their own Pitt River.
Your response was great so we will replay this message again on MAR 2, AT 12 NOON on KCFJ, right after Rush.
I almost forgot, oh, KATIE BURDICK was at this same meeting and MR. CADD SPOKE TO HER.
OH YOU KNOW THE NICE LADY WHO IS LEADIND THE PITT RIVER IRWM PROJECT.
Ranchers /farmers, please, GO AND GET A BINDER COPY OF THE PROJECT AND READ IT.
A good reason to read this, it’s only your property at stake.
WATER LEADS TO MONEY,
MONEY LEADS TO POWER.
PLEASE DONT GIVE THEM THE POWER OR GIVE THEM ANY CONSERVATION EASEMENTS.
THANK YOU FOR LISTENING AND YES MY FELLOW AMERICANS THERE IS A GOD.
DOUG KNOX in Alturas, CA.
Feb 21, 2013
Meeting Announcement – Agenda
8:30 A.M., Thursday, March 14, 2013
Regional Water Quality Control Board
David C. Joseph Room
5550 Skylane Blvd., Ste A
Santa Rosa, CA 95403
Supporting documents for agenda items are posted on our website at least 10 days prior to the scheduled meeting. To view or download documents, go to www.waterboards.ca.gov/northcoast.
Comments on individual agenda items are welcome. A set of draft materials for each agenda item that will be considered by the Regional Water Board is mailed to each person on the interested parties list. If you wish to be added to our interested parties list for a specific agenda item, please contact the staff person listed with the item in this agenda notice.
For comments on an agenda item to be considered by the Regional Water Board, they must be submitted on or before the due date listed in the associated hearing notice, which is mailed to interested parties, and posted on the Regional Water Board’s website.
For any item for which there is no due date specified by a specific hearing notice, all written submittals shall be due no later than 12:00 noon the Friday before the board meeting or workshop. Timely submittal of comments gives the Regional Water Board staff and the Regional Water Board members sufficient time to familiarize themselves with your concerns and for staff to address them.
The Regional Water Board may refuse to accept written comments submitted after the due date in the applicable hearing notice. Pursuant to title 23, California Code of Regulations, section 648.4, the Regional Water Board may refuse to admit written testimony or evidence into the administrative record if it is not submitted to the Regional Water Board in a timely manner, unless the proponent can demonstrate why he or she was unable to submit the material on time or that compliance with the deadline would create an unreasonable hardship. Agenda items are subject to postponement. You may contact the designated staff contact person in advance of the meeting day for information on the status of any agenda item.
It is the policy of the State and Regional Water Boards to provide a work environment that is free from threats or acts of violence. Threats or acts of violence committed by, or directed at, any employee will not be tolerated. The Board will not tolerate derogatory conduct directed toward any person based on their race, national origin, religion, gender, sexual orientation, or similar characteristics.
Any person who appears before the Board has an obligation to represent their interest in a professional manner. The Board requests that all persons in or near a Board meeting refrain from engaging in inappropriate conduct. Inappropriate conduct may include disorderly, contemptuous or insolent behavior, breach of peace, boisterous conduct, violent disturbance or other unlawful interference in the Board’s proceedings. Such conduct could subject you to contempt sanctions by the superior court (Gov. Code, §11455.10.).
The North Coast Water Board considers items which may result in Board action or direction to staff. We encourage input from all people interested in a given item or issue, so that when we act, our decision is based on all available information. We expect all statements made before this Board to be truthful, with no attempts to mislead this Board by false statements, deceptive presentation, or failure to include essential information.
All persons desiring to address the Board are required to fill out a speaker card. The Chair may then determine the number of persons who wish to speak on any one item. Cards are normally provided near the entrance to the meeting room.
Except for items designated as time certain, there are no set times for agenda items. Items may be taken out of order at the discretion of the Chair.
i. Pledge of Allegiance
ii. Roll Call and Introductions
iii. Board Member Ex Parte Communication Disclosure – Board Members will identify any discussions they may have had requiring disclosure pursuant to Government Code section 11430.50.
iv. State Board Liaison’s, Board Chair’s, Board Members’, and Executive Officer’s Reports: These items are for Board discussion only. No public testimony will be allowed, and the Board will take no formal action.
v. Public Forum: Time will be reserved for the general public to address the Board on any matter within the Board’s jurisdiction, excluding those items on the agenda. The Board Chair may limit the public forum to thirty (30) minutes initially, and continue any remaining appearances beyond the thirty (30) minutes at the end of the regularly scheduled business of the day. The Board Chair requests that each person addressing the Board limit their presentation to three (3) minutes.
1. Approval of Meeting Minutes: January 24, 2013
2. Resolution for Dr. Brad Lundborg (Matt St. John)
3. Legislative Update- Informational Item on SB 965 and AB 685
Changes in Ex Parte Rule for General Orders – Implementation of SB 965
Human Right to Water Act – Implementation of AB 685
(Lori Okun, State Water Board, Office of Chief Counsel)
4. Public Hearing on Order No. R1-2013-0006 to consider adoption of proposed Waste Discharge Requirements for Humboldt State University Telonicher Marine Lab, WDID No. 1B12187NHUM, NPDES No. CA0025151 (Charles Reed)
5. Consideration of a Resolution Requesting the State Water Resources Control Board to Nominate Several Sites for the Underground Storage Tank Cleanup Fund, Emergency, Abandoned, Recalcitrant (EAR) Account, Fiscal Year 13-14. (Kasey Ashley)
6. Public Hearing on Order No. R1-2013-0013 to consider the matter of an Extension of Limited Term Amendment Order No. R1-2011-0038, to NTMP Provisions of Order No. R1-2009-0038, Categorical Waiver of Waste Discharge Requirements for Discharges Related to Timber Harvest Activities on Non-Federal Lands in the North Coast Region. (Jim Burke)
7. Public Hearing to consider adoption of Order No. R1-2013-0003, Waste Discharge Requirements for Operation, Corrective Actions, New Construction and Closure of the County of Sonoma Department of Transportation and Public Works Sonoma County Central Disposal Site, WDID Nos. 1B801490SON and 1B99011RSON (Diana Henrioulle)
8. Public Hearing on Order No. R1-2013-0001, to consider adoption of Waste Discharge Requirements for City of Santa Rosa Subregional Water Reclamation System, NPDES No. CA0022764, WDID No. 1B83099OSON, Sonoma County (Charles Reed)
No workshops at this time
9. Russian River Watershed Association Update (Mona Dougherty & Jake Mackenzie)
10. Executive Officer’s Report (Matt St. John)
11. Board Member Requests for Future Agenda Items (Matt St. John)
12. Other Items of Interest (Matt St. John)
13. The Board may meet in closed session to:
a. Consider evidence received in an adjudicatory hearing and deliberate on a decision to be reached based on that evidence (Gov. Code, §11126, subd.(c)(3));
b. Consider the appointment, employment, evaluation of performance, or dismissal of a public employee or to hear complaints or charges brought against a public employee (Gov. Code, § 11126, subd.(a)(1));
c. Discuss significant exposure to litigation (Gov. Code, §11126, subd.(e)(2)(B)(i));
d. Discuss whether to initiate litigation (Gov. Code, § 11126, subd.(e)(2)(C)(i)); and
e. Discuss initiated litigation in the following matters (Gov. Code, § 11126, subd.(e)):
1. Pacific Lumber Company and Scotia Pacific Company, LLC v. North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board and California State Water Resources Control Board, Humboldt Co. Sup. Court, Case No. CV-030650;
2. Pacific Lumber Company and Scotia Pacific Company, LLC v. North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board and California State Water Resources Control Board, Humboldt Co. Sup. Court, Case No. CV-030761;
3. Pacific Lumber Company et al. v. State of California, Sacramento Co. Sup. Ct., Case No. 34-2009-00042016-CU-BC-GDS;
4. PacifiCorp Energy, Inc. v. State Water Resources Control Board, North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board, Sacramento Co. Sup. Court.
Case No. 2011-80000769;
5. In re Petition of California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (SWRCB/OCC File No.A-2029), California Farm Bureau, et. al
(SWRCB/OCC File No. A-2029(a), and Weger Interests Ltd. et al.
(SWRCB/OCC File No. A-2029(b));
6. Sierra Club et al. v. North Coast Regional Water Board and State Water Resources Control Board, San Francisco Co. Sup. Ct., Case No. CPF-09-509193.
14. Arrangements for Next Meeting and Adjournment
9:00 a.m., Thursday, May 2, 2013
#1 Marina Way