Ernie Dalidio owns a ranch near the City of San Luis Obispo. For almost twenty years, he has been trying to develop it. He has tried to have the ranch annexed to the City, and has proposed development within the unincorporated county. In essence, he doesn’t much care how it’s done, but is mainly concerned to find some way to “develop” that ranch.

The saga of the Dalidio Ranch illustrates a couple of basic truths. First, property owners can be expected to pursue their individual self-interest. There is nothing surprising, or wrong, about that. If Mr. Dalidio is successful in getting approval to “develop” his ranch, the value of his land will go up by ten times or more. Who can blame him for attempting to maximize the value of his assets?

Second, land use decisions are, ultimately, made by the “community.” “Property rights,” which are protected by the Constitution, do not include the right to do whatever you want to do to maximize your own profits. To change the use of your property, you do need to get community approval. So far, Mr. Dalidio has not been able to convince the voters of the City and the County that it is in the public interest to let Mr. Dalidio turn his ranch into some sort of urban development.

The latest news is that Mr. Dalidio has made an arrangement with a new group of investors, who will once again try to annex the ranch to the City of San Luis Obispo. You can get more information on the KUSP website.

For KUSP, this is Gary Patton.

More Information

Tribune Article on the Dalidio Project
http://www.sanluisobispo.com/news/local/story/447032.html

Senate Bill 375 has passed the Assembly, and now needs only Senate concurrence and a signature by the Governor to become law. The sponsors of the bill claim it’s the most important land use measure since the California Coastal Act, but with all due respect, this may be a bit of an overstatement.

SB 375 seeks to change the pattern of land use development, and to change transportation funding policies, to help reduce sprawl. It does so, however, in a completely different way from the way that the Coastal Act dealt with similar issues.

The Coastal Act established clear, and mandatory policies to govern future development. Local governments were legally required to follow the policies established in the Coastal Act. SB 375 doesn’t establish such mandatory requirements; instead, it provides incentives to local governments to do the right thing, instead of establishing hard and fast rules.

Earlier in the process, SB 375 did contain a requirement that regional transportation plans achieve the greenhouse gas reduction targets set by the Air Resources Board. After amendments taken to meet the objections of the builders and local governments, however, the bill now lets regional transportation agencies decide for themselves whether or not to make their plans conform. They get some advantages, if they do, including some controversial exemptions from the California Environmental Quality Act, but there are no guarantees.

For KUSP, this is Gary Patton.

More Information

Senate Bill 375
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/postquery?
bill_number=sb_375&sess=CUR&house=B&author=steinberg

The Coastal Act
http://www.coastal.ca.gov/ccatc.html#linkedcoastalact

Los Angeles Times article on SB 375
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/
la-me-sprawl21-2008aug21,0,2160319.story

San Jose Mercury News article
http://www.insidebayarea.com/ci_10292532?source
%253Dmost_emailed.26978592730A3B8C7
F471EACE0DA4EF2.html

An article by Gary Patton, explaining why the type of approach incorporated into the California Coastal Act is so effective, can be found in California’s Threatened Environment, edited by Tim Palmer
http://www.amazon.com/Californias-Threatened
-Environment-Restoring-Dream/dp/1559631732

Land use policy and water supply policy are definitely related. One of the keys to good land use decision-making is to recognize that there are limits that constrain (or that ought to constrain) future development. It’s a human tendency to want to deny limits, but new development has traditionally been seen as being limited by available water supply. The concept of “carrying capacity” reflects this idea.

If coastal communities can turn seawater into an available water supply for development, one possible constraint on future growth is eliminated. Therefore, there is a lot of debate about desalination. The City of Santa Cruz and the Soquel Creek Water District are jointly proposing a “desal solution” to some of their long-term water supply problems, and are testing a pilot project plant, located at the Long Marine Laboratory campus.

A brief article in the “Coast Lines” column of the Santa Cruz Sentinel announced free public tours of the demonstration desalination plant. The tours are being held at 10:00 p.m. on the second Wednesday of each month, and it’s advisable to make a reservation. There is a website, and it invites reservations, but it rejected my own attempt to sign up. I don’t think it’s personal: just another computer glitch. If you track down the transcript to today’s Land Use Report, you’ll find a link not only to the demonstration desal website, but also to the Sentinel article, which provides a contact telephone number.

For KUSP, this is Gary Patton.

More Information

City of Santa Cruz Website on Demonstration Desal
http://www.scwd2desal.org/

Long Marine Lab Website
http://ims.ucsc.edu/lml.html

California Coastal Commission White Paper on Desalination
http://www.coastal.ca.gov/desalrpt/dchap1.html

Sentinel Announcement of free public tours of pilot project desal plant
http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/ci_10273570?
IADID=Search-www.santacruzsentinel.com-
www.santacruzsentinel.com

To make a reservation by telephone contact Melanie Schumacher at 831-475-8501, Ext. 153

The Santa Cruz County Transportation Commission is meeting today, starting at 9:00 a.m. The Commission meets in the Board of Supervisors’ Chambers located in the Santa Cruz County Governmental Center. Of course, your participation is invited!

The most interesting item on today’s agenda, I think, is Item #27, a report on the Santa Cruz Branch Rail Line Acquisition, including consideration of a contract for consulting services relating to maintaining a freight railroad on a right of way that will shortly be in public ownership.

The Transportation Commission has been working on the acquisition of the Santa Cruz Branch Rail Line since 2001. On August 7th of this year, the Commission announced an agreement in principle to purchase the Branch Line for $14.2 million dollars. Although the Commission has already done a great deal of work in connection with acquisition of the Branch Line, a number of due diligence investigations still must be completed. One of these is a comprehensive analysis of the freight service carried on the line, including all costs, revenues, and liability connected with that freight service.

Public ownership of this rail corridor expands long-term transportation options in Santa Cruz County, and sets the stage for connections further south, into Monterey County. If you’re interested in the details, check out the transcript of today’s Land Use Report, and think about attending today’s meeting.

For KUSP, this is Gary Patton.

More Information

Santa Cruz County Transportation Commission Website
http://www.sccrtc.org/

Agenda, September 4, 2008 Meeting
http://www.sccrtc.org/packet/2008/0809/
TCAgenda0809.html

Rail Projects Information
http://www.sccrtc.org/transit.html#acquire

Soon, the Santa Cruz City Council will consider whether or not to fund the initial design for a 5-story garage at the corner of Cedar and Cathcart Streets, in downtown Santa Cruz. Presumably, the structure would be something like the structure at Cedar and Locust Streets. I’m familiar with that parking structure since my former law office building (which happened to be owned by my parents) was torn down to allow the Cedar and Locust Street parking structure to be built. In the case of the proposed Cedar/Cathcart structure, it may be that no buildings will have to be demolished. However, putting up a parking structure at that location would destroy some impressive heritage trees, and would displace the very popular Santa Cruz Farmers’ Market. If for no other reason, that makes this idea controversial.

In fact, though, land use and transportation policy issues should also be considered. If we’re trying to move away from the automobile as our best way to get around our communities, does it really make sense to spend something like $42 million dollars for a new five-story structure for cars? A community group called the Campaign for Sensible Transportation is raising this issue, and it wants the City to implement parking demand management measures, before putting tens of millions of dollars into more new parking facilities.

You can get more information from the transcript of today’s Land Use Report, and you can stay tuned to find out more about the upcoming Council meeting!

For KUSP, this is Gary Patton.

More Information

Campaign for Sensible Transportation Website
http://www.sensibletransportation.org/

City Study on Parking Demand Management Measures for the City of Santa Cruz
http://www.ci.santa-cruz.ca.us/pw/
MST2003/index.htm