|
|||||||
Week of December 27, 2004 to December 31, 2004 |
|||||||
|
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 December 27, 2004 to December 31, 2004
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, December 27, 2004 – The Rancho San Juan Referendum |
 |
|
The holiday season is a time to "kick back," relax, and take a breather, getting ready for the New Year to come. Land use activists in Monterey County, however, aren’t finding this a very "relaxing" period at all. That’s because they’re in the midst of a referendum campaign, to give Monterey County voters the right to have their own say on the biggest development project in Monterey County history. On December 14th, the Monterey County Board of Supervisors voted to approve a development plan for Rancho San Juan. The vote was 3-2, with Supervisors Potter and Calcagno voting "no." Under the California Constitution, voters do have the right to demand a "public review" (or "referendum") of any local government decision they don’t like, but getting such a review by the voters is no easy task. To qualify a referendum for the ballot, opponents have to gather signatures equal to 10% of the voters who voted in the last gubernatorial election. In Monterey County, that turns out to be about 9,000 valid signatures. To get 9,000 valid signatures, those working for a referendum will probably have to collect something like 13,000 signatures in all. And, they have to collect them and turn them in by January 13th, thirty days after the Board’s decision. You can get information on the referendum on the KUSP website. Or tune in tomorrow, when I’ll talk a little bit more about the referendum effort. For KUSP, this is Gary Patton.
|
|
| Tuesday, December 28, 2004 – A Referendum on General Plan Changes |
|
|
The proposed Rancho San Juan development has huge implications for the future of Monterey County. It’s natural that those most affected (current residents and taxpayers) might want to have their own say on this proposed development. The California Constitution does give voters the right to demand a "public review" of the decisions of their elected officials. That’s just what a "referendum" really is. Once it qualifies for the ballot, the voters can have their own say on this important decision. In approving Rancho San Juan, the Monterey County Board of Supervisors took a great many different actions. For instance, they approved a Specific Plan. They approved a "development agreement." They certified that a proper environmental review was carried out, and they approved the so-called "Butterfly Village" subdivision, which is essentially a luxury home development located around a new golf course. The Board also changed the Monterey County General Plan. Now, the most basic rule of good planning is that specific projects are supposed to be consistent with the community’s General Plan. The idea is pretty simple. Once the community has developed a plan for what it wants, then developers should make their development proposals consistent with that plan. In the case of Rancho San Juan, however, the Board of Supervisors changed the plan to accommodate the development, instead of requiring the development to be consistent with the plan. That’s what this referendum on Rancho San Juan is all about. For KUSP, this is Gary Patton.
|
|
| Wednesday, December 29, 2004 – Agricultural Land Conversion |
|
|
In the case of Rancho San Juan, the Board of Supervisors changed the Monterey County General Plan so that the plan would be consistent with the development proposal, instead of requiring the development proposal to be consistent with the plan. This is backwards from what the State’s planning law contemplates, and what good planning requires. The referendum effort underway is to place this decision before the voters. If the referendum qualifies, then the voters of Monterey County will decide whether the Board of Supervisors did the right thing in changing the General Plan to allow Rancho San Juan to be approved. Today, tomorrow, and Friday, I thought I’d highlight for listeners some of the key General Plan provisions that were modified, to allow the developer to proceed. First, the Board of Supervisors changed a provision of the current Monterey County General Plan that says that one of the major objectives of the General Plan is "to protect all viable farmlands designated as prime, of statewide importance, unique or of local importance…" That’s a pretty strong statement in favor of preserving agricultural lands in Monterey County. To allow Rancho San Juan to proceed, however, since it would largely be built on productive farmland, the Board amended the General Plan to restate what I just read, but then adding" "except for … Rancho San Juan." If the referendum qualifies, the voters will get to decide whether that change was a good idea.
|
|
| Thursday, December 30, 2004 – Ridgeline Development |
|
|
If enough valid signatures are obtained on the Rancho San Juan referendum petition, the Board of Supervisors will either have to repeal their action amending the Monterey County General Plan to facilitate the development, or they will have to submit their decision to a vote of the people. Yesterday, I noted that the Board of Supervisors had changed the General Plan to allow Rancho San Juan to proceed despite the fact that it’s proposed to be built on productive agricultural land. The General Plan used to say that you’re not supposed to build on prime agricultural land. Now, it says it’s "ok" to build on prime land if the land is part of Rancho San Juan. The General Plan also used to say the following: "In order to preserve the County’s scenic and rural character, ridgeline development shall not be allowed unless a special permit is first obtained. Such permit shall only be granted upon findings being made that the development as conditioned by permit will not create a substantially adverse visual impact …." This seems clear enough. The General Plan is supposed to protect the scenic beauty of Monterey County. In approving Rancho San Juan, however, the Board of Supervisors modified this General Plan protection by saying: "This policy shall not apply to grading operations…located within…Rancho San Juan…." Again, the purpose of the referendum petition is to let the voters decide whether this was a good change to their General Plan. For KUSP, this is Gary Patton.
|
|
| Friday, December 31, 2004 – Traffic Impacts |
|
|
Rancho San Juan is proposed to be built just north of the City of Salinas, and just south of the unincorporated area of Prunedale. The Prunedale area of Highway 101 is already an extremely unsafe and congested area. For years, safety and capacity improvements for this portion of Highway 101 have been Monterey County’s number one priority. Unfortunately, however, fixing the problem is so expensive that it’s completely unclear when (if ever) the Prunedale Bypass project, which is the County’s proposed solution, could ever be constructed. It’s at least twenty years in the future, and probably more. Rancho San Juan, if it goes forward, would add 70,000 vehicle trips a day making congestion and safety problems significantly worse. However, the Monterey County General Plan, which did contemplate a development project in this location, said the following: "Implementation of all land uses … shall occur only if there will be no significant unmitigated impact on traffic circulation." In other words, no development until the traffic problems are fixed! In approving Rancho San Juan, the Board of Supervisors changed this General Plan provision to say: "…except in the following areas where there is an adopted Specific Plan: 1) Rancho San Juan." If the referendum qualifies, the public will get to vote on whether this General Plan change was in the public interest. For KUSP, this is Gary Patton.
|
|
Archives of past transcripts are available here
|
CONTACT 306 Capitol Street #101 PO Box 1876 Phone (831) 759-2824 Fax (831) 759-2825 |
|
