Tomorrow night, the Santa Cruz City Council will make some important decisions. If you have a position on whether or not the City should invest $4.1 million dollars of its financial reserves in a new basketball arena, to be located at Front and Spruce Streets, on the fringes of downtown, you had better be there.

There are lots of land use questions involved in this deal. The proposal is to build a 2700-seat arena with no dedicated parking. In addition, an existing private parking lot will be eliminated. Beach employees now parking at Front and Spruce Streets will be given free parking at the City’s downtown garage at Front and River Streets, a garage currently relied upon by downtown employees and the customers of downtown businesses. The normal environmental review process has been truncated, noise studies have not been done, and preconstruction work has already begun, even before official approval.

What may be most fascinating to City residents who care about how their financial reserves are being deployed, is the fact that the proposed deal with the Golden State Warriors is not really a “loan” to the Warriors. It’s actually more like a “joint venture” agreement. The City would essentially be going into the basketball and arena business, and the City will get the entirety of its $4.1 million dollars back only if that business does well. Decision time is tomorrow night. There are links at kusp.org/landuse.

More Information:

• Gary Patton’s Two Worlds Blog
• Staff Report – Arena Project
• Santa Cruz Sentinel Article on Warriors Deal
• Santa Cruz Sentinel Editorial Supporting Warriors Deal

Is it possible to say “Monterey County” and not think immediately about some sort of water-related issue? It probably is, but I find it difficult. Each week, as I prepare these Land Use Reports, I check upcoming public meetings, and I almost always find one or more meetings that focus on water issues affecting Monterey County. Today, let me tell you about three of them.

This afternoon, the Monterey County Board of Supervisors will take up Agenda Item #16, and will respond to a request from the Monterey Peninsula Mayors that the County become a member of the Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority. Getting different local governments to work together to address water issues on the Peninsula is a great idea. Of course, past efforts have had some problems.

Today, also at 1:30 p.m., there will be a Public Workshop on the Pajaro River Watershed Integrated Regional Water Management Plan, or IRWMP. That will take place at the Gilroy Library, 350 West Sixth Street, in Gilroy.

Finally, the Monterey County Planning Commission will meet tomorrow, and will consider a use permit for the removal of the Old Carmel River Dam. That is Agenda Item #4. The Commission will also take up some very important non-water related planning issues. I encourage your attendance. There is a link to the Commission’s agenda below.

More Information:

• Gary Patton’s Two Worlds Blog
• Monterey County Board of Supervisors Agenda, September 11, 2012
• Monterey County Planning Commission Agenda, September 12, 2012
• Pajaro River Watershed Integrated Regional Water Management (IRWM) MOU
• Monterey County Weekly Article on County Decision on Regional Water Authority
• For more information on the IRWMP, please contact Lidia Gutierrez:
  Telephone: 925-766-5294
  Email: lidia@gutierrezconsultants.com.

As mentioned yesterday, the Monterey County Planning Commission is meeting today. The Commission meeting starts at 9:00 a.m., and will be held at the Monterey County Government Center in Salinas. As usual, you can find online references below.

Item #5 on today’s agenda is a public workshop. The Commission is going to discuss proposed ordinances that would change the process for considering applications for subdivisions and lot line adjustments. One of the significant changes is the proposed elimination of the Monterey County Minor and Standard Subdivision Committees. I imagine that this item will be of most interest to the planning consultants and the land use attorneys who represent applicants and developers in the County’s planning process. That is probably a good reason for members of the public to be there, too!

As Land Use Report listeners undoubtedly understand, the substance of land use regulations is important, but so is the process used to review development applications. The Minor and Standard Subdivision Committees are “technical” committees, which focus on engineering and similar details. Giving them a key role in the review of controversial applications may be unfair to the general public.

Again, the Monterey County Planning Commission is meeting this morning. If you care about Monterey County land use issues, it would be good for you to be there!

More Information:

• Gary Patton’s Two Worlds Blog
• Planning Commission Agenda, September 12, 2012
• Staff Report on Agenda Item #5 – Elimination of Subdivision Committee

FORA, or the Fort Ord Reuse Authority, is staying in the news. That may not be good news for FORA. The Monterey County Herald recently printed an editorial that pretty much makes that point. Here’s what The Herald said:

FORA leadership wants to keep the organization intact. While hoping for a 10-year extension of its empowering legislation, which is on the verge of lapsing, [FORA] managed to win legislative approval for just six more years and is now awaiting word on whether the governor will approve or veto that plan.

[Consideration of the legislation] has focused community attention on the tedious pace of Fort Ord redevelopment. Meanwhile, litigation over public records has produced a series of embarrassments for the authority. Considering all that, it would seem safe to presume that FORA's leadership is following all appropriate rules to the letter and is listening to input from everyone. In other words, that it is on its best behavior.

Listeners might want to read the entire editorial. The Herald concludes that FORA continues to evidence bad behavior, most recently by unfairly shutting down comments from Monterey County Supervisor Jane Parker.

In Monterey County, the future development of the former Fort Ord is probably the County’s biggest outstanding planning issue (with the exception of water supply issues). I urge Monterey County residents to get involved.

More Information:

• Gary Patton’s Two Worlds Blog
• Monterey County Herald Editorial
• FORA Website
• Fort Ord Base Reuse Plan
• Keep Fort Ord Wild Website
• AB 1614 - Legislation Extending FORA
• LandWatch Monterey County Fort Ord Issues and Actions
• News Article on Special Meeting of Seaside City Council on FORA Lands

Most land use decisions are made locally, but our governmental system presumes that basic directions abxout land use policy come from state legislation. State legislation, for instance, is what protects our coast. The Coastal Act, with its protective policies for coastal resources, and with its protection for public access to the coast, is what prevents local governments from doing what they used to do; namely, giving private developers the right to fill in wetlands, and to pave over farmland, and to shut out the public from our coast and beaches, as proposed private developments got local government approval.

Well, get ready. Proposition 31 on the November ballot would amend the California Constitution, to provide loopholes for local governments to disregard the Coastal Act, the California Environmental Quality Act, and other state legislation. Proposition 31 is opposed by environmental organizations because it would have massively negative impacts on the California environment. Proposition 31 presents itself as a “good government” measure, but it is not clear that letting local governments ignore state environmental standards, and other state laws, will have a lot of “good government” impact.

Proposition 31 is sponsored by a group called California Forward, and is backed by billionaire Nicolas Berggruen. You can read up on Proposition 31 by checking the links below.

More Information:

• Gary Patton’s Two Worlds Blog
• Ballot Pamphlet Information on Proposition 31
• Los Angeles Times Article on Proposition 31
• Text of Proposition 31
• California Forward Website
• California Forward Past and Present Leadership
• Wikipedia Article on Nicolas Berggruen