Housing activists are urging those who care about affordable housing to show up at tomorrow's meeting of the Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors. The Board meeting begins at 9:00 a.m., and Agenda Item #70 is a public hearing on the County's proposed Housing Element Update, which will govern housing-related decisions during the period from 2015 to 2023.

Agenda Item #69 is the Board's consideration of a referendum petition, seeking repeal of an ordinance banning the cultivation of medical marijuana, adopted by the Board last April. Last week, I predicted we'd be hearing about medical marijuana when the Santa Cruz County Board got back from its summer break, and this item proves that my prediction was correct.

Whatever your position on the cultivation of marijuana in Santa Cruz County, I hope you agree that it's good to have a referendum process option, guaranteed by the California Constitution, to allow the people to get involved in policy making directly, when they think their elected officials have made a mistake. In this case, a group calling itself "Responsible Cultivation Santa Cruz" thought that the Board's ban on the commercial growing of marijuana was not well thought out. The group collected enough signatures to put the measure to a public vote, but the Board can, as an alternative, simply revoke its earlier action. That, in fact, is what is being recommended!

This is Gary Patton.

More Information:

• Land Use Links
• Gary Patton's Two Worlds Blog
• Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors August 4, 2015 Agenda
• Agenda Item #70 – Draft Housing Element
• Agenda Item #69 – Marijuana Cultivation Referendum
• May 18, 2015 Article on Referendum Measure
• Press Release From Referendum Sponsors
• Responsible Cultivation Santa Cruz Website

The Santa Cruz City Council is meeting this evening, at 7:00 p.m., in what is billed as a "Study Session." I think this might be an important meeting for city residents to attend.

Agenda Item #6 is a Public Hearing to consider the so-called "Corridor Planning Process and Rezoning." There is a link to the staff report at kusp.org/landuse. Other links are there, too. Check out those links to see if you'd be interested in getting a bit more engaged by attending the meeting tonight.

As I read the staff report, the Council will be reviewing how General Plan policies adopted in July 2012 will affect land uses along Soquel Avenue, Water Street, Ocean Street, and Mission Street. The General Plan calls for the intensification of development along these corridors, the idea being to reduce auto dependency, and to stimulate higher-density infill development. In short, building heights will increase along these corridors. Higher density residential developments and mixed-use developments will be encouraged. Probably, setbacks from the sidewalk will be largely eliminated. The new Palo Alto Medical Clinic building, on Mission Street, is probably a good example of the scale and general character of what will become a common type of development along the corridors.

The proposed changes are significant. Now would be a good time to get involved!

More Information:

• Land Use Links
• Gary Patton's Two Worlds Blog
• August 4, 2015 City Council Study Session Agenda
• Corridor Planning Agenda Report
• Existing Conditions And Site Assessment Report
• Update Schedule

The mayors of the cities on the Monterey Peninsula are showing some concern about California American Water's proposed desalination project. The project may stall out, or experience significant delays, as Cal-Am has to deal with charges of a fundamental conflict of interest in the preparation of a legally required Environmental Impact Report. There are problems with the "test well" that Cal-Am has constructed in Marina, too. Testing had to be suspended because running the well drew down groundwater levels beyond the limits that the Coastal Commission said were acceptable.

The Monterey County Weekly had an informative article about action taken by the mayors on July 30th. The mayors sent a letter to the California Public Utilities Commission, asking for help. Cal-Am is a multi-national, privately-owned corporation, so there is no direct control at the local level. Because there isn't, the State PUC becomes the regulating entity, charged with protecting the public interest.

I have a link to the mayors' letter in today's transcript at kusp.org/landuse. Among other things, the mayors are hoping that the PUC will officially ask the State Water Resources Control Board to extend a deadline that mandates Cal-Am to reduce water withdrawals from the Carmel River. If the current December 2016 deadline isn't extended, the Peninsula's water supply could be cut in half.

More Information:

• Land Use Links
• Gary Patton's Two Worlds Blog
• Monterey County Weekly Article on Carmel River Deadline
• Text of Mayors' Letter

Listeners have probably heard about "green" land use. The idea is that new development should meet rigorous environmental standards, reducing water use, and energy use, and using less land for more development by increased residential densities, coupled with mixed-use development that can make it convenient to substitute a walking trip, or a bicycle trip, for what would otherwise be an automobile trip.

Well, one of the nation's foremost supporters of smart growth, or "green" development, has just issued an important warning. Kaid Benfield, who is associated with the Natural Resources Defense Council, is a nationally-recognized expert on "green" development. Thus, I paid attention when I heard about his most recent article, "Green Sprawl Is Still Sprawl." I have a link in today's edition of the Land Use Report blog, found at kusp.org/landuse. If the article sounds interesting, I hope you'll track it down. While the specific development proposal Benfield reviews is located in San Diego County, the lessons he provides in this recent article are applicable in the Monterey Bay Region, too. One local example of what might be called "green sprawl" is the East Garrison project out on Reservation Road.

Location, location, location. It can't be called "green" if it's located away from existing developed areas.

More Information:

• Land Use Links
• Gary Patton's Two Worlds Blog
• Kaid Benfield's Switchboard Blog

Noisy airplanes seem to be a problem for lots of people in Santa Cruz County. And in other places, too. Activists have been sending me information about local and Bay Area efforts to confront the Federal Aviation Administration, or FAA, about FAA-approved changes to the approach pattern to the San Francisco International Airport. These new approach patterns have exposed new areas to jet-caused noise, all in the name of a better and more efficient air transportation system.

If you'd like to find out more, you might want to visit the Facebook site, or the website, for a group that calls itself "Save Our Skies," though I think it might be better if they had they named the group "Save Us From Our Skies." The complaints (and the problems) are very real, and local, state, and federal elected officials are beginning to get involved. Santa Cruz County Supervisor John Leopold has been playing a key role at the local level, and both Sam Farr and Anna Eshoo, Members of Congress representing areas within Santa Cruz County, are also gearing up to deal with the issues. Assembly Member Mark Stone is also engaged with the problem. If you are affected, you can not only hook up with the activist group; you can also register your concern with one of these elected officials, and ask them to keep you posted.

There are links to more information in today's transcript at kusp.org/landuse.

More Information:

• Land Use Links
• Gary Patton's Two Worlds Blog
• Article on Portola Valley Lawsuit On Airport Noise
• Save Our Skies Facebook Page
• Save Our Skies Website