Watsonville City Council members were forced to show their hands regarding Atkinson Lane during the City Council meeting Aug. 12.

City staff described and illustrated on slides Concept A and Concept B. Concept A involves high-density housing on the Atkinson Lane project site, with 400 to 500 dwelling units on 32 acres. Although there is no prepared Environmental Impact Review yet, traffic will increase by 800 to 1,000 vehicles, impacting surrounding streets and Freedom Boulevard. Some of the project site will have 20 units per acre and other parts will have 18 units per acre.

Concept B is similar except that some high-density housing will be adjacent to Corralitos Creek. A stated advantage is that it spreads out the high-density housing. Another difference is a road will exit the site to the east toward East Lake Avenue/Highway 152 — through farmland outside the urban limit line. Staff concluded that Concept A was preferable to Concept B because it was less expensive.

Watching the councilmembers talk about issues might call to mind various positions on ideology and policy. There are the build-anything-anywhere folks; cautious-growth folks; and folks who want resources, infrastructure and jobs first. Watching individual councilmembers vote sparked some questions: Who is influencing whom with what? Who knows? However, some council votes lead to speculation as to one “who.”

Some councilmembers favored proceeding with the EIR preparation, which these days, mitigates any problem. “Mitigate” used to mean take actions that lessen the affects of a problem. Now it means spin the problem with words or sweep the problem under the rug. So, getting to the EIR stage greases the path to the specific planning stage, and councilmembers know that. Attorneys say that a specific plan must be consistent with the general plan. The superior court says the general plan EIR needs an overhaul.

Related to all of this was the board of supervisors meeting Aug. 19 about the “groundwater emergency” that forced every supervisor to show their hand. The total Pajaro Valley water consumption is 70,000 acre-feet per year, with the overdraft estimated at 20,000 acre-feet per year. The “groundwater emergency” will require all water users to decrease their consumption by 20 percent and a moratorium on building until the intrusion problem is reversed. The cop-out 4-to-1 vote postponed doing anything. The rationale stated was that PVWMA will wave a magic wand and quickly solve the whole problem, like it has over the past 24 years. Some politicians are willing to bet that Watsonville city wells will not be contaminated by the ever-increasing saltwater intrusion before a project is approved. Are they praying for time? Advancing development projects is priority No. 1 with at least one supervisor. What do the citizens of the Pajaro Valley think about gambling with the freshwater supply? I bet if council and supervisors gamble and lose, and the citizens cry bloody murder, they will simply blame the PVWMA.

The whole state of California has a water shortage, and the Pajaro Valley’s situation is even worse. The probable long-range solution involves both Santa Cruz and Monterey counties’ boards of supervisors, the state, the federal government, and private industry and business. Until then—a moratorium is at least prudent.

So, how about other concepts, like Concept C, which mitigates the very sticky traffic problem? This concept includes building about 31 houses, which would result in approximately 62 vehicles on the site, as well as a heliport and helicopter service to fly over adjacent congested streets and boulevards. The city and county could sign an MOU (memorandum of understanding) to purchase and operate six to 12 jet helicopters to provide airborne taxi service. Site density would be sufficient so that heliport approaches would be relatively open. You are concerned about the cost of helicopters and their operation, and about the whop-whop-whop noise generated by these flying machines? A side benefit of C would be that rain would percolate into the ground because of the fewer roofs and less pavement. Yes, Concept C mitigates the traffic and percolation problems, but is absurdly expensive.

How about Concept D, that addresses both the traffic and water-percolation problems? This “green” concept leaves the site as open land and farmland. It addresses a number of issues, including schools, property values, the need for policing, long-range economics, housing foreclosures and more, voiced by a long line of persons testifying before the City Council. Concept D precludes covering the area with roofs and pavement allowing rainfall to percolate into the underground aquifer. Roofs and pavement are forever. Agriculture use can and does change. So, pick Concept A, B, C or D — or add your own Concept E and send it to the city.

On Nov. 4, residents of Pajaro Valley can make some changes in the council. One supervisor had enough guts to make tough water decisions. Remember that on Nov. 4.

•••

Dan Chauvet is a longtime Watsonville resident with a degree from Oregon State University in land management. His opinions do not necessarily represent those of the Register-Pajaronian.

••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

(Published in 8/28/08 edition)

Share on Facebook