I think a year is too soon. I think we need to collect the data proving that it not only doesn't work economically, but that the plan and its underlying ideology are having numerous and severe adverse environmental impacts, the system is being managed for the benefit of a closed group of heavy political donors... in short that it is working AGAINST the base of voters who supported it. I think a celebrated corruption case or two might help and I have a minor in with the new DA.
We also need to bring the ag community on board and that is a LONG education process (they do have money for a fight but have to be convinced). They just don't understand how they are being screwed and roll their eyes at the mere mention of the UN.
We need to remember that the UN is really working in the interest of an AMERICAN elite, that it exists as a get-around to the Constitution, and to collect the world's resources under the control of a few for fun and profit. We know that it is more than that, but that message will have to wait. When people start to associate it with garden variety corruption in government, then they will start to see it for what it is. That takes data, and not just from Santa Cruz.
I think you would do well to collect data on the results of Sustainable Development, similar to what Randal O'Toole did in Portland (if you don't have his book you should get it). If we can show that corruption, economic misery, and destructive environmental impacts are inherent to Agenda21, AND that they are ALL manifesting in Santa Cruz, it will go a long way to help cement the case against it. This is a monstrous beast that is dangerous if only wounded. We have to be certain of a clean and quick kill. There is a way to do it and to rely upon the courts alone is a sure way to go broke.