|
|||||||
KUSP LandWatch
News |
|||||||
|
ogo.gif" width="108" height="109" border="0"> "Listen Live" |
KUSP provided a brief Land Use Report on KUSP Radio from January 2003 to May 2016. Archives of past transcripts are available here.
Week of September 22, 2003 to September 26, 2003
The following Land Use Reports have been presented on KUSP Radio by Gary Patton, Executive Director of LandWatch Monterey County. The opinions expressed by Mr. Patton are not necessarily those of KUSP Radio, nor of any of its sponsors.
Monday,
September 22, 2003 – Monterey County LAFCO Meets Today
The Monterey County Local Agency Formation Commission (or LAFCO)
meets today. LAFCO will have a great deal to say about the future
growth and development of Monterey County, particularly with respect
to the question of how much Salinas Valley farmland will be paved
over for urban development. LAFCO will also decide whether or not
a proposed incorporation of Carmel Valley will be allowed to move
forward. And let’s not ignore the issue of water service in
North Monterey County, either. Groundwater overdraft in North Monterey
County has reached crisis proportions. LAFCO will designate the
agency, or agencies, that will provide water service, and who will
thus have to deal with the problem.
LAFCO may even get involved with the issue of affordable housing. At today’s meeting, LAFCO will receive a presentation on a proposed affordable housing development called “Village of Hope.” That development, proposed by nonprofit builder South County Housing, would require an annexation to the City of Salinas.
Last week, I gave a kind of introduction to the importance of LAFCOs. Check the KUSP website at www.kusp.org if you’d like to review that material, or if you’d like to send me a comment or suggestion. If you’re interested enough to want to take in the Monterey County LAFCO meeting today, it will be held at 4:00 o’clock this afternoon, at the County Courthouse in Salinas.
For KUSP, this is Gary Patton.
More Information:
Monterey County LAFCO Website - http://www.co.monterey.ca.us/lafco/
Tuesday,
September 23, 2003 – Santa Cruz County Growth Goals Report
Santa Cruz County has a unique growth management system. Growth
is “managed,” more or less, in every community, but that
often happens by default. In Santa Cruz County, it happens by design.
In 1978, the voters adopted Measure J, which requires county government
to manage the character, amount, location, and timing of all future
development. Measure J can probably be credited with cutting the
growth of Santa Cruz County in half.
In the early ‘70’s, Santa Cruz County was expected to have a population of 500,000 people by the year 2000. Urban growth was projected to extend from the Summit to Santa Cruz along Highway 17, from Santa Cruz to Boulder Creek along Highway 9, and from Santa Cruz to Watsonville along Highway One and Freedom Boulevard. Most farmland would be paved over, including most of the county’s North Coast. That didn’t happen because of Measure J. In fact, there were only 250,000 people in the county in the year 2000, and there are plenty of problems even so. We can imagine what twice as many people would have meant!
Measure J requires county government to face growth issues directly, and to hold an annual public hearing so you can have a say about the future. That annual hearing is scheduled this morning, at the Santa Cruz County Governmental Center. Get more information at www.kusp.org.
For KUSP, this is Gary Patton.
More Information:
Text of Measure J
http://ordlink.com/codes/santacruzco/index.htm
[Title 17 – Community Development]Today’s Board Agenda
http://sccounty01.co.santa-cruz.ca.us/bds/Govstream/ASP/Display/SCCB_
AgendaDisplayWeb.asp?MeetingDate=9/23/2003Measure J Report
http://sccounty01.co.santa-cruz.ca.us/bds/Govstream/BDSvData/non_legacy/
agendas/2003/20030923/PDF/050.pdf
Wednesday,
September 24, 2003 – The Mirabito Storage Project
A controversial project is on the Monterey County Planning Commission
agenda today. It’s officially called “Mirabito PLN980301.”
This means that the applicant is named Mirabito; that the application
was filed in 1998, and that it was application number 301 that year.
Mr. Mirabito wants to develop a mini-storage facility right in the middle of Carmel Valley. Among other things, he wants to have spaces to store boats. The Carmel River is not navigable by boats, so this seems a strange request, and devoting spectacular Carmel Valley real estate to a use traditionally found on freeway frontage roads does raise questions. Plus, there are stormwater and traffic concerns. Plus, no Environmental Impact Report has ever been prepared. Since 1998, the Mirabito project has always faced significant criticism, but the applicant, and his attorney, Tony Lombardo, have always bounced back with a new version, to counter whatever concerns have been voiced.
Critics often denounce local government for taking too long to make planning decisions. Often, however, as in this case, the delays are the result of a project applicant trying to avoid a decision that says, “No” to the proposed project. Of course, the local government does have to go along with all those extension requests, and that’s been the case here. The county has never said, “No.” Today, the Planning Commission will decide what it thinks.
For KUSP, this is Gary Patton.
More Information:
Monterey County Planning Commission Agenda
http://www.co.monterey.ca.us/pbi/CCA/PC/09-24-03/pc09-24-03a.htmMirabito Project Staff Report
http://www.co.monterey.ca.us/pbi/CCA/PC/09-24-03/PLN980301PC1.pdf
Thursday,
September 25, 2003 – Caltrain Extension to Monterey County
Historically, the growth of a region has been heavily dependent
on its geography. Access to water, and the way that local geography
either promotes, or doesn’t, easy transportation, have both
been especially significant. Large cities have often grown up on
rivers because rivers provide both a reliable water supply and an
easy way to transport people and goods. From the times of the industrial
revolution on, however, human beings have had an ever greater ability
to modify nature, and they’ve done that to escape geographic
determinism.
In Monterey County, transportation facilities are the main limit to growth. Water is not so great a problem. An acre of houses uses the same amount of water as an acre of crops, so there’s plenty of water to transform lettuce fields into subdivisions. But there aren’t adequate transportation facilities. Growth in Monterey County won’t really be able to “take off” until there is a better transportation connection with the San Francisco Bay Area.
Yesterday, the Transportation Agency for Monterey County (or TAMC) considered how to speed a Caltrain connection to the Silicon Valley. The expansion of Highway 101 is already its highest priority. Looked at from an historical perspective, local agencies seem to be trying to change Monterey County from an agricultural area to a population center. This is not a case of geographic determinism. It’s a question of choice.
For KUSP, this is Gary Patton.
More Information:
TAMC Website
http://www.tamcmonterey.org/TAMC Agenda
http://www.tamcmonterey.org/tamc/2003/sep/agenda.pdf
Friday,
September 26, 2003 – The Seaside General Plan
The City of Seaside, in Monterey County, is undertaking a comprehensive
review of its current General Plan. Loyal listeners to this Land
Use Report know that a community’s General Plan is the single
most important document governing the future growth and development
of that community. It follows from this that Seaside residents should
take very seriously what is being proposed, and should get involved
now.
This may not be very easy. The city seems to be rocketing ahead in its approval process, which means that opportunities for public participation are currently limited. Still, there are some opportunities to get involved, and I’d like to give you a “heads up” now.
On Wednesday, October 8th, the Seaside Planning Commission will conduct an in-depth discussion of the goals, policies, and implementation measures proposed in the draft General Plan document. They will also review and consider the adequacy of the Draft Environmental Impact Report. That meeting, the only future meeting currently scheduled before the Planning Commission, will be at 7:00 p.m. at the Seaside City Hall.
On Thursday November 6th, and on Thursday November 20th, the Seaside City Council will be considering the proposed General Plan, and the Draft EIR. If you’d like more information, please click on the Land Use Report link at www.kusp.org. Send me an email with your comments and suggestions, too!
For KUSP, this is Gary Patton.
More Information:
Seaside City Website
http://bbs.ci.seaside.ca.us/Information on 2003 Seaside General Plan Update
http://www.ci.seaside.ca.us/general%20plan/gp.htmAdoption Timeline
http://www.ci.seaside.ca.us/general%20plan/update/amendedgpadopttimeline.htm
Archives of past transcripts are available here
|
CONTACT 306 Capitol Street #101 PO Box 1876 Phone (831) 759-2824 Fax (831) 759-2825 |
|
