The Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors meets tomorrow. Former Fifth District County Supervisor Mark Stone is now a member of the California State Assembly, so he won’t be on the dais on Tuesday. Two new Board members, incoming Fifth District County Supervisor Bruce McPherson and incoming Second District County Supervisor Zack Friend, won’t assume office until January, and so they won’t be on the dais, either. Tomorrow’s meeting will be the last scheduled meeting for Second District County Supervisor Ellen Pirie, who will be honored by the Board as the Board’s first item of business. Third District County Supervisor Neal Coonerty, Fourth District County Supervisor Greg Caput, and First District County Supervisor John Leopold will all continue on.

As ever, I encourage your attendance at the meeting tomorrow. Those interested in land use and planning issues can almost always find something of interest when they do attend a meeting of a County Board of Supervisors. One of the items on the agenda tomorrow is set for 1:30 p.m. The Board will decide whether or not the discharge of firearms should be prohibited in the Upper Eureka Canyon area. That is Item #60. Item #53 is an ordinance to “republish” Volume One of the County Code. The transcript of today’s Land Use Report has a link to the proposed new version, which has a nice feature. It is “searchable” online.

More Information:

• Gary Patton’s Two Worlds Blog
• Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors Agenda – December 11, 2012
• Agenda Item #60 – Firearms Prohibition
• Agenda Item #53 – Republished County Code
• Republished County Code, Volume One

As mentioned yesterday, the Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors is meeting today. So is the Monterey County Board of Supervisors. Boards of Supervisors almost always meet on Tuesdays, and there is an operational reason for that.

Board meeting agendas, outlining items to be discussed at the next Board meeting, are normally made public on Friday. Board members then have the weekend to peruse the agenda, and to see what items will be confronting them at the next meeting. They have Monday to track down county staff members, and other persons, who may have information about an upcoming agenda item. The Board takes action on Tuesday, and that gives the county staff Wednesday and Thursday to carry out directions from the Board. This weekly cycle seems to work well for most Boards of Supervisors. I lived with it for twenty years, and definitely got into that weekly rhythm, and found it worked for me.

Tomorrow, the Monterey County Board of Supervisors is handling many ceremonial items, and not really any major land use items. The Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors, however, has a number of significant land use items on its agenda, including that firearms discharge issue, and a meeting of the Zone 7 Board of Directors, which has control over flood control and water conservation issues in the Pajaro Valley. Links are available at kusp.org/landuse.

More Information:

• Gary Patton’s Two Worlds Blog
• Monterey County Board of Supervisors Agendas
• Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors Agenda – December 11, 2012
• Agenda Item #60 – Firearms Prohibition
• Agenda Item #56 - Zone 7 Agenda

I have put a link to a recent newspaper article in today’s Land Use Report transcript, found at kusp.org/landuse. The article, published in the Santa Cruz Sentinel on December 4th, discusses an upcoming land use decision that will have major economic, environmental, and social equity impacts in the Pajaro Valley. This decision will be made, at least initially, by the voters, not by elected officials.

For as long as I have been involved in public life in Santa Cruz County, the elected officials of the City of Watsonville (with some individual exceptions, of course) have wanted to pave over the agricultural land surrounding Watsonville, to build housing, and stores, and factories. The aim has been, it is always claimed, to achieve “economic” benefits for Watsonville. Often, “equity” benefits have been cited, too. The concept has been that we must accept negative “environmental” impacts in order to achieve positive “economic” and “equity” gains. That is the story featured in the Sentinel article.

Agriculture is, by far, the biggest business in the Pajaro Valley, and hundreds of farmworkers depend on employment in the agricultural fields surrounding Watsonville. Does displacing agriculture, and these workers, and putting up a big-box store on productive farmland, actually achieve economic and equity advances for the community at large? Soon, Watsonville voters will have a chance to decide.

More Information:

• Gary Patton’s Two Worlds Blog
• Santa Cruz Sentinel Article on Proposed Ag Land Annexation

Yesterday, I cited to an article in the Santa Cruz Sentinel, noting that certain elected officials in Watsonville claim that paving over farmland to build a big-box store would have positive “economic” and “equity” benefits. I invited listeners to question that claim. What is certainly true is that such a change in land use designations would vastly increase the value of the specific real properties involved.

Today, let me cite the Carmel Pine Cone, to raise a somewhat similar question. The Pine Cone says that business leaders claim that “the desal plant proposed to supply the Monterey Peninsula with water should be much larger, to support the hospitality industry, [to] make it possible to build on existing lots of record, and generally [to] make the Peninsula a better place to live.”

I invite listeners to think about the claim that more growth and development, and building a bigger desal plant to support such growth and development, is a good way to “make the Peninsula a better place to live.” There may be a question about that. What is certainly true is that more hotels, and more houses, and more development will mean more money for the business leaders who are claiming that their aim is the public good.

In my experience, where land use policy issues are in question, claims of public benefit should always be closely scrutinized. Often, it is private interests, not public interests, which will be advanced.

More Information:

• Gary Patton’s Two Worlds Blog
• Carmel Pine Cone, December 7 – December 13 Edition

The Fort Ord Reuse Authority Board of Directors (FORA) is meeting today. I have put a link to the agenda in today’s transcript. The meeting is scheduled to begin at about 3:30 this afternoon.

Agenda Item #7b is to take final action on the Base Reuse Plan Reassessment Report. This has been quite controversial. There may be more controversy today. Agenda Item #8b is related. The staff has provided a report regarding “Guiding Principles” that the FORA staff believes should guide the five land use jurisdictions with implementation responsibility for the Base Reuse Plan. These are the cities of Marina, Seaside, Monterey, Del Rey Oaks, and the County of Monterey.

The proposed ”Guiding Principles” are relatively straightforward: First, to achieve the purposes of the existing Base Reuse Plan before adding or supplanting those purposes with a new purpose. Second, to limit land use decisions to land use jurisdictions. Third, to begin now to plan for the anticipated dissolution of the Fort Ord Reuse Authority by accomplishing the remaining tasks under the Base Reuse Plan before the Reuse Authority goes out of business, essentially six years from now.

I invite KUSP listeners to get involved with planning and land use issues on the former Fort Ord. There are great challenges, and great opportunities, ahead.

More Information:

• Gary Patton’s Two Worlds Blog
• Fort Ord Reuse Authority Website
• FORA Meeting Agendas
• Agenda Packet For December 14, 2012 FORA Board Meeting