 |
October
24, 2001
Mayor
and Council Members
City Council, City of Salinas
Salinas City Hall
200 Lincoln Avenue
Salinas, CA 93901
RE:
"Preferred Alternative" For Salinas General Plan Update
Dear
Mayor Caballero and Council Members:
On October 25th, your Council is expected to establish a "preferred
alternative" for the Land Use and Circulation elements of the
Salinas General Plan. This "preferred alternative" will
guide preparation of the draft General Plan Update for the City
of Salinas.
We
think the "preferred alternative" for the General Plan
Update should outline a future that the City Council truly "prefers."
While there will certainly be future environmental review and public
comment, and an opportunity to make changes in response to that
review and comment, the designation of a "preferred alternative"
by the Council on October 25th will establish the Council’s
basic vision for the future of Salinas. Deciding upon a "preferred
alternative" is the second most important decision you will
make in the entire General Plan Update process. The most important
decision, of course, will be your final decision, sometime next
year.
LandWatch
deeply appreciates your willingness to hold a public hearing before
deciding how to frame the "preferred alternative." In
this letter, we attempt to outline a positive approach, and to highlight
a number of key issues. We summarize our specific recommendations
at the end of this letter. Thank you very much for taking our views
into consideration.
- The
Power of Policy:
State law requires virtually every planning and zoning decision
made by the City to be "consistent" with the City’s
General Plan. That is why the General Plan is called the "Constitution"
for land use in the city. If the General Plan contains a strong,
clear, and unambiguous statement of policy, then that policy will
have to be followed in subsequent City Council decisions.
We hope that the City Council will direct its staff to include
a number of strong and specific policies in the "preferred
alternative," so that future growth will conform to the real
preferences of the Council and the community.
- Rancho
San Juan: In the past, members of the City Council have
stated their individual opposition to the proposed Rancho San
Juan development, and the City of Salinas has officially opposed
this development. If the City believes that the Rancho San
Juan development is not the kind of development that would benefit
Salinas, then the City of Salinas should not adopt a plan that
would permit it to go forward.
Presumably, the only reason for the City to plan for a development
that it doesn’t want is because the Council believes that
the development is "inevitable," and the City’s
efforts might, in some way, result in a "better" development
than the County of Monterey would otherwise approve. However,
Rancho San Juan is far from "inevitable." If Salinas
indicates in its new General Plan that it is proposing development
on Rancho San Juan, then this will tell the County that development
is "alright" from the City’s point of view. If
the City of Salinas doesn’t want development on Rancho San
Juan, it needs to state that clearly, and to let the County know
its position. Taking the position that the development is "ok"
if done by the City will be an argument in favor of the Rancho
San Juan development.
As City Council Members know, the County is redoing its own General
Plan. While the County’s current General Plan would permit
the development of Rancho San Juan, the official General Plan
objectives for the new General Plan actively discourage developments
like Rancho San Juan. A specific designation of Rancho San
Juan as an "Area of Development Concentration" was removed
from the statement of objectives adopted by the County Board of
Supervisors, and the Board’s decision was unanimous.
There is no reason to believe that the Board of Supervisors
is committed to building Rancho San Juan. It is true that
the Board of Supervisors is under a court order to consider
a Specific Plan that would allow the Rancho San Juan development,
but while the Board has to "consider" that plan, it
doesn’t have to approve it. If Salinas indicates that the
development of Rancho San Juan is "ok", by planning
for the development within the City’s General Plan, then
that will be an argument used at the Board of Supervisors in support
of the Rancho San Juan development.
LandWatch supports the Planning Commission’s recommendation
to the City Council, with respect to Rancho San Juan. If the
City of Salinas doesn’t think that the development of Rancho
San Juan is a good idea, then that development should be removed
from the City’s "preferred alternative."
- Housing
For The Essential Workers of Salinas: LandWatch believes
that new housing should serve local working families. Tying new
housing developments to new jobs created in Salinas is one way
to make that happen. Two other policy requirements can also help.
We urge the City Council to direct its staff to include a "Housing
For Salinas" policy in its "preferred alternative,"
to include affirmative provisions to ensure that new housing developed
in the City will be directed to the needs of local working families.
Both of the following provisions should be considered for inclusion
in this "Housing For Salinas" policy:
-
Any annexation of land to the City of Salinas for residential
development will only be pursued by the City if an enforceable
agreement has first been entered into between the City
and the land owner, committing the land owner (or any
successor in interest) to develop housing on the land
that is enforceably restricted and permanently protected
for sale or rental to persons who have incomes that
reflect the range of incomes of the residents of Salinas
at the time the annexation is proposed.
- Any
residential housing development constructed in the City
of Salinas shall provide that at least 25% of the new
housing built shall be enforceably restricted and permanently
protected for sale or rental to families who have family
incomes equal to or lower than the median family income
in Salinas at the time that the housing development
is approved. No "in lieu" payments should
be permitted, and actual construction of the housing,
included within the new development, shall be required.
|
Policy requirements contained in a General Plan do have "power."
They are requirements that must be followed. The two suggested
policies, above, have been implemented by other jurisdictions,
and they do work! If the City of Salinas "prefers"
that new housing in Salinas actually meet the needs of local working
families, then the General Plan should reflect that preference
as a policy requirement. Otherwise, the City will continually
confront proposals for housing developments that will provide
the greatest profit to developers and landowners, instead of meeting
the community’s urgent housing needs.
Housing sold to the "market" is housing sold in a market
that includes the entirety of the Silicon Valley. Absent some
action by the City, persons with incomes generated outside of
Monterey County will be able to "outbid" local working
families for new housing constructed here. Unless the City
of Salinas "prefers" to build bedrooms for out of county
workers, the new General Plan should contain a set of "Housing
For Salinas" policies, like those outlined above.
- Schools
and Infrastructure:
Past residential growth has overwhelmed local schools, and has
overtaxed other aspects of the infrastructure needed to service
new growth. The City’s "Land Use Plan" is not only
a "map." It’s a statement of policies, too, and
depending on how those policies are written, the Land Use Element
of the City’s General Plan can provide great protection to
current and future residents, making certain that new growth doesn’t
overwhelm the services that such new growth requires.
LandWatch urges the City Council to direct its staff to include
a "Schools and Infrastructure Policy" in the "preferred
alternative" for the General Plan Update. This "Schools
and Infrastructure Policy" would consist of a clear and unambiguous
requirement that new development provide necessary school capacity,
and other necessary infrastructure and services, before development
can proceed.
- New
Lands To Be Annexed, Population Growth, and Density:
The consultants and city staff recommend that the "preferred
alternative" for the General Plan Update include a proposal
to annex and develop over 4,000 acres of land now located outside
the City of Salinas. Most of the land proposed for annexation
and development is commercially productive agricultural land.
LandWatch believes that the acreage currently proposed for annexation
and development is excessive. The correct planning figure should
be based on all of the following: (1) a commitment to minimize
the conversion of commercially productive agricultural land; (2)
population projections that are consistent with the official population
projections for the region; and (3) a commitment to require development
densities that use land efficiently. Our thoughts are more fully
outlined below, and we provide a specific recommendation for Council
adoption at the end of our letter.
- Minimize
the Conversion of Commercially Productive Agricultural Land:
If someone proposed converting existing factory and manufacturing
facilities in the Silicon Valley to shopping centers and residential
subdivisions, people would think they were "crazy."
Those facilities are both "job-producing" and "wealth-producing."
Exactly the same thing is true with respect to the agricultural
lands surrounding the City of Salinas. These fields are both "job
producing" and "wealth producing" for the local
economy. Each acre of agricultural land brings an average of $10,000
into the local economy each year, and with very few public costs.
Converting these lands to other uses eliminates this income, and
increases public costs.
LandWatch believes that the City Council should state as a matter
of basic General Plan policy that the annexation and conversion
of commercially productive agricultural land should be minimized.
- Make
Sure Annexations Benefit the Community:
As Council Members know, residential developments, even "upscale"
developments, usually don’t pay for themselves. They end
up costing the community, not benefiting it. That is one
reason that new residential housing developments should be tied
to new job growth. It is also a reason to approach annexations
with great caution. To ensure that the annexation and development
of areas outside the current city limits don’t end up imposing
new burdens upon city residents and taxpayers, the City should
insist that new annexations demonstrate, through a cost benefit
study, that they will advance the interests of the community.
-
Responsible Population Projections: The amount of
land needed for annexation and development will depend, in significant
part, on how much new growth is accommodated in Salinas. We
urge the City Council to direct its consultants and staff to develop
a new General Plan Update that will accommodate the population
growth that the Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments (AMBAG)
has projected for Salinas over the next twenty years. AMBAG
is the regional agency officially charged with the responsibility
for making population projections for this region, and AMBAG says
that Salinas should expect 39,863 new residents between the year
2000 and 2020 (not 90,000, as the consultants and city staff are
currently recommending).
"Natural growth" in Salinas (births over deaths) is
projected at 29,000 from 2000 to 2020. If the City of Salinas
adopts a land use plan that will accommodate 90,000 new residents
(when only 29,000 new residents will be added by "natural
growth"), then Salinas is saying that it wants to bring 61,000
new residents into Salinas from other places. This means that
Salinas will be planning to be a "bedroom community"
serving the Silicon Valley.
Again, the City of Salinas should plan for what it wants.
If the City wants to become a bedroom community for people who
move in from elsewhere, then the 90,000 figure suggested by the
consultants and staff makes sense. But if that is not what Salinas
wants, it needs to plan accordingly.
Typically, residential growth does not pay for itself. It brings
major community impacts, and lots of community costs. That is
why jurisdictions in the Silicon Valley try to "spin off"
their residential growth to outlying areas (like Salinas). For
every seven new jobs created in the Silicon Valley, only one new
house is built. People attracted by Silicon Valley jobs are coming
to Salinas, looking for the homes that cities in the Silicon Valley
aren’t providing. If Salinas adopts a land use plan that
provides the houses to accommodate the workers whose jobs are
in the Silicon Valley, then Salinas will be agreeing to take the
costs of residential growth, without the benefits of the jobs.
Is this really your "preferred" alternative?
Another way to approach this issue is to designate land for residential
development only for the AMBAG projections (39,863 instead of
90,000), but to incorporate policies in the General Plan that
directly tie the approval of new housing to the creation of new
jobs in Salinas. If the jobs come, then that would justify going
beyond the 39,863 figure. New housing would be allowed only if
the jobs came at the same time. The Council should plan only
for the housing needed to go along with jobs actually created
in Salinas.
- Require
Appropriate Densities For Annexed Lands:
The consultants and staff are recommending that the expansion
of the City take place at very low densities. Their version of
the "preferred alternative" recommends that out of a
total of 21,933 new housing units to be built on lands outside
the current city limits (in Future Growth Areas 9-15), 12,163
units would be build on "residential low density" lands.
That’s 55%. Only 2,759 units are proposed for "residential
high density" lands. That’s 13%. Only 6,626 are being
proposed on "residential medium density" lands, or 30%.
Naturally, building at lower densities uses more land. It also
makes the housing constructed less affordable, because it raises
housing costs.
The "preferred alternative" presented to the City
Council is an alternative that will result in 55% of the new growth
in Salinas over the next 20 years being comprised of single-family
subdivisions much like Harden Ranch, Williams Ranch, and Creekbridge.
This is a sure fire way to provide "bedrooms" for those
whose jobs are elsewhere. It is exactly the opposite of what the
City should do if it would like to use prime farmland efficiently,
and provide housing for the essential workers of Salinas.
Instead of using up more than 4,000 acres of land trying to accommodate
90,000 people at low densities, the City Council could, and should,
demand that the new General Plan use land efficiently, at higher
but still moderate densities. If they did so, the Council could
easily accommodate the 40,000 new people projected by AMBAG on
1,000 acres, instead of 4,000, and substantially fewer than 1,000
acres would be needed, if an effective infill strategy were pursued.
| Density
Range |
Du/Acre |
Acres |
Number
of Dwelling Units |
People
Per Dwelling Unit |
Population |
Percent
Distribution |
| Residential
Low Density |
6.5
|
503
|
3270
|
3.67
|
12,000
|
30%
|
| Residential
Medium Density |
11.7
|
419
|
4905
|
3.67
|
18,000
|
45%
|
| Residential
High Density |
16.8
|
162
|
2725
|
3.67
|
10,000
|
25%
|
| Totals |
|
1,084
|
10,900
|
|
40,000
|
|
The table above, for illustrative purposes only, overstates the
need for new land. No infill is shown, and the densities are very
moderate. Also, the percentage of land allocated to "residential
high density" is relatively small, 25%. This chart shows
that there is no need for the City of Salinas to develop a General
Plan that calls for the annexation and development of over 4,000
acres of agricultural and open space land.
- Urban
Growth Boundary:
Based on an analysis of where the best farmland is, most people
agree that new growth in Salinas should generally be directed
to the East and North, away from the most productive agricultural
lands. LandWatch urges the City Council to establish a strong
"boundary" to protect those agricultural lands that
should not be converted for development.
Conclusion:
The "preferred alternative" for the General Plan Update
should actually be something that the City of Salinas "prefers."
The ability of the City to shape its future through strong and focused
General Plan policies is real, but the kind of future the City prefers
won’t happen automatically:
- If
the City wants infill, and compact, city-centered growth (which
LandWatch strongly supports) then the policies of the General
Plan need to insist that the future growth of Salinas conform
to these standards.
-
If the City wants to preserve the commercially productive agricultural
lands that surround the City, then the City needs to provide long-term
protection for those agricultural lands that are not specifically
designated for development.
-
If the City wants to make sure that new growth doesn’t overwhelm
our infrastructure, and result in continued and further school
overcrowding, then the City needs to put policies in place that
will prevent that result.
-
If the City wants new housing to serve the working families of
Salinas, and wants that housing to relate to job growth here,
not somewhere else, then the City needs to specify that this is
the type of housing it will approve, and not housing does not
meet these critical community needs.
Specific
Recommendation:
LandWatch
recommends that the Salinas City Council adopt a motion that directs
City staff and consultants to develop a draft General Plan Update
based on the staff proposal, with the following changes and additions:
- 1.
Staff and consultants should be directed to remove Rancho San
Juan from the planning area, and the Salinas General Plan Update
should not project the development of Rancho San Juan during the
next twenty years.
- The
staff and consultants should be further directed to analyze the
proposed development of Rancho San Juan within the EIR, to provide
information and analysis that can be used by the City in connection
with any proposals considered by the County of Monterey.
- The
staff and consultants should be directed to include "Housing
For Salinas" policies within the draft General Plan Update,
and specifically including the following policies:
- New
housing development within the City of Salinas should
be directly related to local job growth.
- Any
annexation of land to the City of Salinas for residential
development will only be pursued by the City if an enforceable
agreement has first been entered into between the City
and the land owner, committing the land owner (or any
successor in interest) to develop housing on the land
that is enforceably restricted and permanently protected
for sale or rental to persons who have incomes that
reflect the range of incomes of the residents of Salinas
at the time the annexation is proposed.
- Any
residential housing development constructed in the City
of Salinas shall provide that at least 25% of the new
housing built shall be enforceably restricted and permanently
protected for sale or rental to families who have family
incomes equal to or lower than the median family income
in Salinas at the time that the housing development
is approved. No "in lieu" payments should
be permitted, and actual construction of the housing,
included within the new development, shall be required.
|
- The
staff and consultants should be directed to include a set of "Schools
and Infrastructure" policies within the draft General Plan
Update that will ensure that new developments provide necessary
school capacity, and other necessary infrastructure and services,
before the development can proceed.
- The
staff and consultants should be directed to include a specific
statement within the draft General Plan Update, committing the
City of Salinas to a policy of minimizing the conversion of commercially
productive agricultural land, as growth and development proceed.
- The
staff and consultants should be directed to include a policy within
the draft General Plan Update that will require that proposals
for the annexation and development of areas outside the current
city limits demonstrate, through a cost benefit analysis, that
it will provide significant benefits to the community.
- The
staff and consultants should be directed to base proposals in
the draft General Plan Update that would allow for the annexation
of lands outside the current city limits on the population projections
published by the Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments
(AMBAG), coupled with density calculations that will require any
lands annexed to be developed within the following broad density
ranges: (1) Residential Low Density, 30% of the area annexed,
and (2) Residential Medium or High Density –70% of the area
annexed. The staff and consultants should be further directed
to include policies that tie any residential development intended
to serve growth beyond those projections to the population growth
demonstrably associated with jobs created within the local area.
- The
staff and consultants should be directed to incorporate policies
within the draft General Plan Update that establish a "growth
boundary" for those areas on the edge of Salinas where agricultural
lands should be preserved, where future annexations are not projected,
and where development is not desired.
cc: Members, Planning Commission
Planning Director
City Manager
|
