KUSP LandWatch News
Week of July 19, 2004 to July 23, 2004

The Transportation Agency for Monterey County (or TAMC) is proposing a sales tax increase, to be voted on in November. Frankly, it’s hard to keep up with exactly what TAMC wants to do. TAMC first proposed a twenty-year tax, and did a full Environmental Impact Report on their spending proposal. Then, at a regular meeting several weeks ago, but with no advance notice, the Board decided to modify the plan, eliminating the so-called “Prunedale Bypass,” and funding an entirely new road, called the “Prunedale-Salinas Eastside Expressway.” LandWatch Monterey County, among others, raised concerns about the impacts of this proposed new roadway, since it had never received any environmental or public review.

About a week or so later, at a hastily-called special meeting, attended by TAMC Board Members and major developer advocates, TAMC changed their plan again. Now, the tax is proposed for fourteen years, not twenty, and the “Prunedale Bypass” is back in the mix.

Good land use planning ties new infrastructure directly to land use policy objectives. Monterey County does not have a current and adequate General Plan, despite having spent the last five years, and about five million dollars, trying to design one. Developers want money for new roads, of course, but it’s hard to see why the voters would want to tax themselves to provide that money, until there’s some certainty about how it would be used.For KUSP, this is Gary Patton.

More Information:

TAMC Sales Tax Proposal
http://www.tamcmonterey.org/stp/index.htm

The City of Marina will consider the proposal on July 20, 2004
http://www.ci.marina.ca.us/

The City of Monterey has the proposal on its July 20, 2004 Agenda
http://www.monterey.org/ccncl/agendas/2004/a040720.pdf

Tuesday is when most Boards of Supervisors meet. Today, however, neither the Santa Cruz nor the Monterey County Board of Supervisors will be in session. Typically, Santa Cruz County Supervisors take a vacation in July. In Monterey County, the Board has taken today off to allow Board Members to attend the NACO meeting being held in Phoenix, Arizona. NACO, incidentally, stands for “National Association of Counties.”

Click on the Land Use Report link at www.kusp.org, to find a reference to the NACO website. That website confirms a fact that is usually somewhat surprising to Central Coast residents. Except for the City and County of San Francisco (which isn’t, strictly speaking a “county” at all) Santa Cruz County, at 446 square miles, is the smallest county in California, in terms of geographic area. Monterey County is the sixteenth largest, with 3,322 square miles of area. Because Monterey County is so big, residents are often told that growth and development pressures don’t really pose a threat to the current quality of life in Monterey County. If you’re familiar with San Bernardino, Riverside, Fresno, San Diego, or Los Angeles counties, however (all of which are larger than Monterey County) you’ll see that large size doesn’t necessarily mean that unchecked growth won’t have a powerful effect.

For KUSP, this is Gary Patton.

More Information:

NACO Website
http://www.naco.org/

Information on California Counties
http://www.naco.org/Template.cfm?Section=Find_a_County&Template=/
cffiles/counties/state.cfm&state.cfm&statecode=CA

 

The Scotts Valley City Council meets this evening at 6:00 o’clock. Among other things, the Council will discuss a request to reduce the minimum lot size requirement for second dwelling units. If that concept is approved, it will be easier for those owning smaller residential properties within the City of Scotts Valley to build another unit on their land. Generally, that kind of policy change should provide more affordable rental opportunities in Scotts Valley, at least in the long run.

What struck me, particularly, on the City’s agenda, was Agenda Item D, an annual review of the Glenwood Development Agreement. The proposed development of the “Glenwood” property in Scotts Valley was a very significant and high profile political issue within the City. If I’m remembering it correctly, both ballot measures and lawsuits, not to mention very heated City Council meetings, were all part of the process. Ultimately, a residential development was approved, and the “conditions” imposed on the developer were included within a “development agreement.”

Each year, in public, the performance of the developer, and the City, is reviewed by the City Manager and the Council. I’d like to compliment the City on this process. The annual review process makes sure that the decisions made by public representatives are actually carried out as they’re supposed to be. That’s not true everywhere, by any means. Other jurisdictions might copy this example.

For KUSP, this is Gary Patton.

More Information:

Scotts Valley
http://www.scottsvalley.org/

Agenda for July 21, 2004 Meeting
http://www.scottsvalley.org/cca.PDF

A month or so ago, I traveled to San Luis Obispo County, to address a gathering of environmentalists about land use policy. I stopped for lunch in San Luis Obispo itself, and was immediately approached by a petition-gatherer, who asked me to sign a petition in favor of prohibiting the growing of genetically engineered crops within San Luis Obispo County. I’d advertised this petition here on one of my KUSP Land Use Reports, and I was happy that I hadn’t been misrepresenting the zeal of local activists. The day I was there happened to be the last day that signatures could be obtained, and the person who approached me was unclear whether the sponsors would actually gather enough signatures.

Well, it turns out they did. So, for San Luis Obispo County listeners, and for those particularly interested in the issue of genetically engineered crops, let me announce an event this evening. At 7:00 p.m., at the San Luis Obispo City/County Library, the kickoff to the November ballot campaign will begin with a showing of “The Future of Food,” a documentary discussing some of the economic, legal, scientific, health, and environmental problems associated with genetically engineered crops.

The issues involved in this initiative go far beyond land use, but the effort demonstrates that the land use powers of a local community are, in fact, extremely broad, and that we can use them to help make our communities the kind of communities we want.

For KUSP, this is Gary Patton.

More Information:

Environmental Council of San Luis Obispo County
http://www.ecoslo.org/

Initiative Website
http://www.slogefree.org/

82,000 acres is a lot of property. That’s the size of the Hearst Ranch property in which the State of California is seeking to acquire various rights, to conserve and protect natural resources, and to provide public access to one of the most striking portions of the California coast. The Ranch, of course, is in San Luis Obispo County. If you’ve been to Hearst Castle, you know the area!

The proposed “deal” is for the state to purchase various property rights from the Hearst Family, at a cost of $95 million dollars. The “deal” is controversial. Many coastal activists say that the State is not getting enough for the money they’re spending, and they are particularly concerned that public access to lands on the east side of Highway One is not being guaranteed. Representatives of the Hearst family argue that the value of the rights that the State would acquire is actually on the order of $230 million dollars, so that getting these rights for $95 million makes the proposed “deal” is a real “steal” for the public. The counterattack is that the appraisal that says the rights are worth $230 million is highly inflated, presuming a level of development that the Coastal Commission would never allow. Further, the difference between the “deal” price of $95 million and the appraised value of $230 million will be a tax deduction for the family.

If you track down today’s transcript on the KUSP website, you’ll find a reference to the “deal” documents, so you can get into the argument yourself.

For KUSP, this is Gary Patton.

More Information:

Hearst Transaction Documents
http://resources.ca.gov/

Environmental Council of San Luis Obispo County
http://www.ecoslo.org/