|
|||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||
| |
|
|
|
||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Listen to the reports each weekday at 6:49 am & 8:49 am To
suggest a topic for a future land use report, or to convey a comment,
please use this link.
|
| Past
Reports
The following Land Use Reports have been presented on KUSP by Gary Patton, General Counsel of The Planning and Conservation League. The opinions expressed by Mr. Patton are not necessarily those of KUSP Monday, March 23, 2009 – The General Plan Report in Santa Cruz County The Board of Supervisors of Santa Cruz County will meet tomorrow, and one of the first items on the Board’s agenda should be of interest to those who follow land use matters. Item #63 is a public hearing to consider the 2008 General Plan report. Some public agencies make it hard to get information about the agenda. Santa Cruz County makes it easy. The materials to be considered by the Board are online, so you can read them right now. Santa Cruz County even lets you submit a written comment, from a link found within the online agenda. Of course, your participation in person is also encouraged. You’re invited to attend, listen, and testify. This item will probably be heard at about 9:30 tomorrow morning. One thing I found particularly interesting in the staff report was a listing of the key planning issues that the Board will have to consider in connection with an update of the current General Plan. Here are the issues identified as most important by County staff:
Sometime in the near future, the Board of Supervisors will begin a General Plan Update. It’s not too soon for interested persons to start thinking about what kind of “Constitution for land use” Santa Cruz County ought to have. For KUSP, this is Gary Patton. More Information Santa Cruz County Website – http://www.co.santa-cruz.ca.us/ Land Use and the General Plan (LandWatch Guidebook) - http://www.landwatch.org/pages/publications.htm Tuesday, March 24, 2009 – The South Spanish Congregation Subdivision Last Tuesday, I talked about an item on the agenda of the Monterey County Board of Supervisors. This week, the same item has slipped right in all over again. For many years, the Monterey County Board of Supervisors has rather routinely approved land divisions in North Monterey County, despite groundwater overdraft problems. Last Tuesday, thanks to an appeal of such a subdivision approval by citizen activist Marjorie Kay, the Board had before it a recommendation to turn down just such a proposed subdivision. I suggested a round of applause for Ms. Kay, since without her appeal, the old pattern would definitely have continued. Last week, it looked like Ms. Kay had won her point, in view of the staff recommendation for denial, which followed up on an earlier Board hearing. I did say, though, and I’ll quote myself from last week, “You might want to watch what the Board does on this one!” My personal experience convinces me that the Monterey County Board of Supervisors almost always responds to the pleas of the development community, and rarely responds positively to the local residents who want more responsible land use. Would this case really be different? As it turns out, my cautionary word was appropriate. The Board did not turn down the subdivision last week, despite its past decision to do that. The developer asked for a one-year continuance, to keep this project alive, and that will be decided today. You might want to watch what the Board does on this one! For KUSP, this is Gary Patton. More Information Monterey County Website – http://www.co.monterey.ca.us/ Board Agenda - http://monterey.granicus.com/ViewPublisher.php?view_id=5 Wednesday, March 25, 2009 – The LWV Comments on Water If you are a resident of Monterey County and have an interest in land use issues, you should probably think about hooking up with the League of Women Voters of the Monterey Peninsula, or the League of Women Voters of the Salinas Valley. These organizations aren’t just for women, despite the name, and both of them are actively involved in a whole range of public policy issues affecting Monterey County and the State of California. Not least among these issues is water! As Land Use Report listeners undoubtedly know, Monterey County, and the Monterey Peninsula, face a number of critical water supply problems. One proposed solution, advanced by California American Water, is the so-called “Coastal Water Project,” which would include the construction of a large new desalination plant at Moss Landing. I’ve recently had an opportunity to review a comment letter, submitted to the California Public Utilities Commission on behalf of the two Monterey County League Chapters. As is so often the case, the comment letter filed by the Leagues raises very important points. For instance, the Leagues note that the actual feasibility of the various alternatives discussed will depend on their cost, and that there is not really adequate information to make a judgment about the comparative costs of the projects. The comment period has been extended to the middle of April, and you can get information on how to comment by tracking down the transcript for today’s Land Use Report at www.kusp.org. For KUSP, this is Gary Patton. More Information: League of Women Voters of the Monterey Peninsula - http://www.lwvmp.org/ League of Women Voters of the Salinas Valley - http://sv.ca.lwvnet.org/ League of Women Voters Positions on Water - http://ca.lwv.org/lwvc/issues/natres/water.html CalAm Coastal Water Project - http://www.cwp-eir.com/ California American Water Website - http://www.amwater.com/caaw/ Water For Monterey County Website - http://www.waterformontereycounty.org/index.php Thursday, March 26, 2009 – Atkinson Lane A major new development is being proposed near Watsonville. This development would include 450 new homes, and about 1,600 new residents, and would result in the conversion of over forty acres of prime agricultural land. Agricultural buffer issues, endangered species issues, traffic issues, and public service issues must all be considered. Local residents are quite concerned about the possible impacts of the project, according to a recent news story, and the Santa Cruz County Farm Bureau may well get involved, too. In many counties (like Monterey County, for instance), the Farm Bureau tends to lead the charge in favor of development on agricultural land. The Santa Cruz County Farm Bureau, however, tends to go down on the side of ag land preservation. What a concept! As currently presented, the Atkinson Road Specific Plan is proposed for lands located in an unincorporated portion of Santa Cruz County. The property is not currently in the City of Watsonville, though it’s immediately adjacent. This means that the Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors will have to take official action on the proposed Specific Plan. Yet, the actual proposal is that the land be added to the City of Watsonville, since the high-density development contemplated is much more appropriate within the city than on farmlands located in the unincorporated area. I encourage you to start looking into this proposal. I’ll talk more about it tomorrow. For KUSP, this is Gary Patton. More Information Santa Cruz Sentinel News Article – Friday, March 27, 2009 – The Specific Plan Process The Atkinson Lane Specific Plan proposes significant new development on 65.8 acres of property located within the unincorporated area, adjacent to the Watsonville City limits, south of Corralitos Creek, and east of Freedom Boulevard. The proposed Specific Plan is intended to achieve two results: first, to facilitate the County requirements for a Planned Unit Development, to enable rezoning and development of a portion of the property by the County; second, to fulfill the state requirements of a Specific Plan to enable development of the balance of the area by the City of Watsonville. Any development within the City of Watsonville could occur only after the Local Agency Formation Commission, usually called LAFCO, approves an annexation of the land to the City. As you can tell from this description of the proposed project, this is a rather complicated proposal, since it directly concerns two different agencies, the County and the City of Watsonville. The unusual nature of what’s going on here is emphasized by the fact that while the County really has jurisdiction over most of the property, the planning documents are all on the City of Watsonville website, and the public hearing process is being overseen by the City. A Specific Plan must be consistent with the relevant General Plans. There are some real legal problems there, looking ahead, with respect to both the County and the City General Plan designations. Now is a good time for you to get engaged. For KUSP, this is Gary Patton. More Information Santa Cruz Sentinel News Article – |