|
KUSP provides
a brief Land Use Report on KUSP Radio. Tune in every weekday at 6:33 or 8:49 am.
KUSP is at 88.9 FM in General Coverage, 105.9 FM in Big Sur Valley, 91.3 FM in
Palo Colorado Canyon, and 91.7 FM in San Ardo. Archives of past transcripts are
available here.
Week
of December 1, 2003 to December 5, 2003
- Monday,
December 1, 2003 – Marina Heights, One More Time
- Tuesday,
December 2, 2003 – Farmland Security in Monterey County
- Wednesday,
December 3, 2003 – Pacific Grove Housing Element
- Thursday,
December 4, 2003 – The Rispin Mansion EIR
- Friday,
December 5, 2003 – EcoSlo and Anza Borrego
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 1, 2003 – Marina Heights, One More Time
Last Tuesday, the Marina City Council deliberated on the proposed
Marina Heights project, the largest development in the City’s
history. The plan is to demolish 874 existing homes, and to build
1,050 new homes to replace them. The homes to be demolished are
identical to nearby homes that have been rehabilitated, at a cost
of about $30,000 apiece, and then rented to working families at
affordable prices. Pursuing this kind of housing rehabilitation
strategy could have made a real dent in the need for affordable
housing on the Monterey Peninsula. The City of Marina, however,
is going in the opposite direction. None of the new homes will be
affordable. 840 of them (that’s 80%) will go for more than
$500,000 apiece.
Water, not affordable housing, was the big issue last Tuesday. It
turns out that the City Council does not have a Water Supply Assessment
required by state law. Nonetheless, the Council voted to go ahead
with the project. Tomorrow night, at 6:30, the Council will probably
be taking final action. Council Member Bruce Delgado has indicated
that he can’t support the project in its current form. Council
Members Ken Gray, Dave McCall, Michael Morrison, and Mayor Ila Mettee-McCutchon
seem disposed to vote “yes.” If you’re from Marina,
now is the time to let your elected officials know what you think.
For
KUSP, this is Gary Patton.
More
Information:
City
of Marina Website
http://www.ci.marina.ca.us/
Agenda
For November 25, 2003 Meeting
http://www.ci.marina.ca.us/council/agenda2003/1125.htm
LandWatch
Letter on Marina Heights Project
http://www.landwatch.org/pages/issuesactions/
marina/111903marinaheights.html
LandWatch
Letter on Water Supply Assessment
http://www.landwatch.org
Minutes
of Marina Planning Commission
http://www.ci.marina.ca.us/planning/pc20030317.min.html
Monterey
County Herald Article
http://www.montereyherald.com/mld/
montereyherald/news/local/7290200.htm
Tuesday,
December 2, 2003 – Farmland Security in Monterey County
At their meeting this morning, the Monterey County Board of Supervisors
will begin by considering the so-called “Consent Agenda.”
Items are usually placed on the Consent Agenda because they’re
deemed non-controversial.
Item
#20 is hardly that. Near to the historic Town of Spreckels, D’Arrigo
Brothers, a major farming business, is proposing to pave over 27
acres of prime agricultural land, to build a processing factory
and an office building (not to mention a huge parking lot). If approved,
the new plant will result in over 900 trips a day by large trucks
through and adjacent to the Town of Spreckels. Currently, the D’Arrigo
Brothers facility is in Castroville, in an industrial area specifically
designated for such factory-like activities. This project will be
heard by the County Planning Commission on Wednesday, December 10th,
so there is still time to make your views known.
Today,
though, the Board of Supervisors is considering another aspect of
the proposed project. D’Arrigo Brothers has been receiving
property tax benefits because they signed a “Farmland Security
Zone” contract, promising to keep this prime land in agricultural
use. Today, they’re asking the Board to make a finding that
building a factory and office building on the land would be “compatible”
with that contract. As I say, this is not a non-controversial item!
Find out more about Farmland Security Zones at www.kusp.org.
For
KUSP, this is Gary Patton.
More
Information:
Williamson
Act Statute
http://ceres.ca.gov/topic/env_law/williamson/stat.html
Explanation
of Williamson Act Program
http://www.consrv.ca.gov/DLRP/lca/
Monterey
County Board of Supervisors Agenda
http://www.co.monterey.ca.us/cttb/agenda.htm
LandWatch
letter on D’Arrigo application
http://www.landwatch.org
Wednesday,
December 3, 2003 – Pacific Grove Housing Element
The Pacific Grove City Council is meeting this evening, to consider
approval of a new Housing Element. The meeting is at the Civic Center,
300 Forest Avenue, at 6:00 p.m. Get more information at www.kusp.org.
Adopting
an adequate Housing Element in the General Plan is a particularly
difficult challenge for many local governments. Cities and counties
must demonstrate to the state government that their Housing Element
will allow enough new growth to accommodate what is called the local
community’s “fair share” of expected state growth.
Small cities, like Pacific Grove, Carmel, and Capitola, often have
a difficult time doing that. Even larger cities, like Santa Cruz
and Monterey, can have similar problems. In order to accommodate
new growth, there needs to be land available, and when a city is
“built out,” the city needs to be creative, to be able
to convince the state that it can, in fact, absorb the required
new growth.
Criticisms
of the state’s “fair share” approach are common.
Dividing up projected statewide growth, and simply assigning shares
to various local governments (irrespective of local constraints,
like water and land availability), can be more of an “academic”
exercise than a realistic effort to provide housing opportunities.
On the other land, allowing local communities to exclude lower income
housing isn’t right, either.
To
see how the City of Pacific Grove accomplished this difficult balancing
act, think about attending the meeting tonight.
For
KUSP, this is Gary Patton.
More
Information:
City
of Pacific Grove Website
http://www2.ci.pacific-grove.ca.us/index1.html
Agenda
for December 3, 2003 Meeting
http://www2.ci.pacific-grove.ca.us/admser/agendas/2003Dec3.pdf
Pacific
Grove Community Development Department Website
http://www2.ci.pacific-grove.ca.us/index1.html
Thursday,
December 4, 2003 – The Rispin Mansion EIR
Tonight at 7:00 p.m. the Capitola City Council will discuss the
Environmental Impact Report for a bed and breakfast development
proposed at the old Rispin Mansion. Land use issues are often contentious,
and this is no exception. The Rispin Mansion site includes important
Monarch butterfly habitat, and is located on steep land adjacent
to Soquel Creek. Lots of environmental issues are raised by the
proposal (not to mention traffic concerns).
There
are, in other words, a number of possible problems with the proposed
development. On the other hand, the Rispin Mansion has been vacant
and unused for decades, and the developer’s proposal has many
attractive aspects. If you’d like to weigh in, do plan to attend
the City Council meeting this evening.
If
you do, think about singing a few praises for the California Environmental
Quality Act, or CEQA. CEQA requires our local governmental agencies,
before acting, to consider the possible environmental impacts of
any project they propose (including giving a permit to a private
party). Without CEQA, there would be no particular inducement for
a developer to think about the environment. Because of CEQA, developers
must try to design environmentally acceptable projects. The bed
and breakfast developer has done just that. He is trying to maximize
habitat for Monarch butterflies, and make that an actual “marketing
attraction” for his proposed business.
The
Council will decide how well he’s done. Thanks to CEQA, the
issue is on the table.
For
KUSP, this is Gary Patton.
More
Information:
City
of Capitola Website
http://www.ci.capitola.ca.us/
Capitola
City Council Agenda
http://www.ci.capitola.ca.us/capcity.nsf/CtyCnclAgendas.html
You
can contact the Rispin For All opposition group through jbragar@cruzio.com
Friday,
December 5, 2003 – EcoSlo and Anza Borrego
The Environmental Council of San Luis Obispo County is a nonprofit
organization working to preserve and protect the spectacular environmental
attributes of the San Luis Obispo County portion of the Central
California Coast. As you’ll see, EcoSlo also follows key environmental
issues elsewhere in the state. You can get a reference to the EcoSlo
website, and sign up for their periodic email alerts, by clicking
on the Land Use Report link at the KUSP website. I am also interested
in your comments and suggestions, so I hope you’ll send me
an email to give me your thoughts.
Right
now, the Environmental Council of San Luis Obispo County is urging
concerned citizens to become involved in the General Management
Plan being developed for the Anza-Borrego Desert State Park. Anza-Borrego
is actually located in Riverside and San Diego counties. It is the
largest California State Park, and is a critical refuge for endangered
plant and wildlife species, including approximately 60% of California’s
remaining bighorn sheep population.
Though the Anza-Borrego Desert State Park was founded in 1933, there
is still no management plan. Earlier this year, a draft plan was
finally completed, and now’s the time for public involvement.
A lot is at stake. I’ve included some instructions on how you
can get involved as part of the transcript of today’s Land
Use Report. You can find it all at www.kusp.org.
For
KUSP, this is Gary Patton.
More
Information:
EcoSlo
Website
http://www.ecoslo.org (Sign
up for EcoSlo email alerts here)
For
more information about the Anza-Borrego Management Plan –
Pamela Heatherington (pam@ecoslo.org)
Comment
letters should be sent to:
Caryl O. Hart, Chair
California State Park and Recreation Commission
Box 942896
Sacramento, CA 94296-0001
FAX: 916-653-4458
Archives
of past transcripts are available here
|
