KUSP LandWatch News
Week of December 13, 2004 to December 17, 2004

The Marina City Council held an unusual meeting last Saturday. Perhaps the most unusual thing about it is that it was on a Saturday. Normally, City Councils don’t meet on the weekends. To hold what amounts to a “special meeting,” on the weekend, the City needed to do some extra public notices, to make sure that the public knew that the meeting was taking place.

Those notices were given. But while there was public notice about the meeting, there was absolutely no way for the public actually to attend the meeting and to listen to what was going on. That’s also unusual, and that’s because this weekend meeting was a “closed session,” in which the City Council met with the City Manager (and presumably with the City Attorney) to talk about “property negotiations” related to the socalled “University Villages” project. There’s something unusual about that, too. The “property” involved, on the former Fort Ord, is actually owned by the public. The City is not trying to “buy” property, but is apparently trying to negotiate an agreement with a proposed developer on what the developer will do and how the profits will flow. Generally, and this may be just a personal opinion, I think the public ought to know what its local officials are proposing to do with property owned by the public. If you’re from Marina, and would like more information, you might want to talk to the City Council about this “closed meeting” procedure. It’s becoming an increasingly common phenomenon in Monterey County.

For KUSP, this is Gary Patton.

More Information:

Marina Website
http://www.ci.marina.ca.us/

The Rancho San Juan Specific Plan proposes the largest development in the history of Monterey County. Its traffic, water, and fiscal impacts would be monumental. The vast majority of its 4,000 homes would sell for more than half a million dollars apiece.

The first stage of the Rancho San Juan development is called “Butterfly Village.” This is a luxury homes subdivision built around a golf course. The project is being processed by the County (and is being recommended for approval) even before the Specific Plan for the area has been adopted. At a hearing today, the Board of Supervisors is being asked to approve both the Butterfly Village project and the Rancho San Juan Specific Plan. Generally, the idea of “planning” is to plan first, and then to evaluate proposed projects against the adopted plan. Here, things are proceeding in exactly the opposite way.

This seems to be happening because the Board of Supervisors has been considering Rancho San Juan in a long series of “closed litigation sessions,” with no public participation. The public has no access to what the Board has been told, and so the Board can claim its decision is based on information that only it has.

As I said yesterday (using the City of Marina as an example), this phenomenon of holding the most important meetings on a development project in a closed setting, and excluding the public, seems to be an ever more frequent phenomenon in Monterey County.

For KUSP, this is Gary Patton.

More Information:

County’s Website on Rancho San Juan
http://www.co.monterey.ca.us/pbi/major/rsj/rsj_main.htm

LandWatch Information on Rancho San Juan
http://www.landwatch.org/pages/issuesactions/
northcounty.html#rancho

Last Thursday, meeting in San Francisco, the California Coastal Commission made a decision that could profoundly affect the future development of North Monterey County. Information on the proposed Sunridge Views subdivision can be obtained by clicking on the Land Use Report link at www.kusp.org.

Essentially, the Coastal Commission found that Monterey County could not properly create new subdivided lots, which of course need water, in areas where there is a current groundwater overdraft. This seems logical, of course, and that is actually what the Monterey County General Plan and its local ordinances say. However, the Monterey County Board of Supervisors has continued to approve new subdivisions in areas of groundwater overdraft, despite its own adopted ordinances. The Coastal Commission decision makes clear that it’s wrong for the County to do that, and that no more subdivisions should be approved unless and until there is an assured, long term water supply actually in place.

In recent years, lots of subdivisions have been proposed in North Monterey County. Hundreds of proposed new lots are currently pending approval. The decision on Sunridge Views should mean that subdivisions in the Coastal Zone will now diminish. Since the County’s ordinances for the non-coastal area are essentially the same as in the coastal area, this Coastal Commission decision might have an even broader significance.

For KUSP, this is Gary Patton.

More Information:

Sunridge Views Coastal Commission Staff Report
http://www.coastal.ca.gov/sc/Th14c-12-2004.pdf

LandWatch Appeal on Sunridge Views
http://www.landwatch.org/pages/issuesactions/
northcounty/082904appeal.pdf

LandWatch Letter to Board on Sunridge Views
http://www.landwatch.org/pages/issuesactions/
northcounty/082904sunridge.pdf

Let me alert you to a couple of meetings taking place today. In the City of Monterey, the City Council will be meeting at 4:00 o’clock this afternoon in a joint study session with the Chairs of its Boards and Commissions, specifically including the Planning Commission, the Historic Preservation Commission, the Parks and Recreation Commission, and the Architectural Review Committee. All of these advisory bodies play an important role in land use issues in the City of Monterey. If you’re a Monterey resident, you can check out your new City Council, and find out more about the City’s most important Commissions, by showing up at the Council Chambers at 4 o’clock.

For Santa Cruz City residents, tonight’s the night to tell the City Planning Commission what you think about the proposed new hotel and convention center on West Cliff Drive. The Commission will be holding a public hearing on the plan to demolish the old “Dream Inn,” replacing it with a 270-unit hotel, conference center, and a six story garage. Traffic impacts on Bay Street and Chestnut Street would likely be significant, as well as neighborhood impacts throughout the Lighthouse Point area. This project, which would require city funding to proceed, was previously fast tracked. Now, there’s time to let the City know what you think.

My advice? Let them know what you think! You can get more information at www.kusp.org.

For KUSP, this is Gary Patton.

More Information:

Information on the Coast Hotel Project, including a copy of the agenda for the Planning Commission public hearing, can be found on the City of Santa Cruz Website
http://www.ci.santa-cruz.ca.us/

We live in a “free market” society, which means that those who have the most money tend to get what they want. The “market” sets prices based on voluntary transactions entered into between those who have things to sell, and those who are trying to buy them. Those who are selling things naturally want the highest price possible. Those buying them want the lowest. If I’m only able to spend $200,000 for a new house, to cite a painful and very realistic example, someone who can afford to pay more will “outbid” me. They’ll get the house. In a free market, prices rise to the highest price that sellers can get. Right now, in the Monterey Bay Area, an average house is going for $500,000 or more, and that means that average and below average income people just can’t outbid those with more money.

The “housing market” in which we operate, unfortunately, is more than just the “local” market, so that the residents and workers of our local communities (who earn their money here) are competing for housing with persons who may earn their salary and wages somewhere else, or who may come from almost anywhere in the world to outbid local residents and workers.

It’s traditional, in the United States at least, to use various kinds of government mechanisms to “correct” or “adjust” what an unregulated free market will do. I’ll be talking more about the market and land use in future editions of this Land Use Report.

For KUSP, this is Gary Patton.