CA: Community Planning Case Study: Corralitos, California

Advance Bulletin ^ | Oct 13, 2004 | Susanna Lynton Jennings

[hedgetrimmer]

In the name of "protecting" and "enhancing" our neighborhoods, community planners and local busybodies are fanning out all over the country to change our towns and neighborhoods They call it "visioning".

An existing town that has excited the interest of community planners is the small town of Corralitos, located in an unincorporated area of Santa Cruz County, California. The Corralitos Valley Community Plan follows the same guidelines and values as groups like the Congress for New Urbanism and the Smart Growth Network whose stated goals are to reshape our values from an individual rights-oriented society to a "community" or collective rights society. "Visioning" plans use psychological and physical cueing designed to make residents change their views on the social value of private property and submit to rules and regulations of conformity required for a "community rights" oriented society to evolve.

Corralitos is a quirky little town with a long tradition of "live and let live" as a community value. In Corralitos, you'll find tiny, one-bedroom cottages on postage stamp sized lots as well as large chateau-like estates, California ranch-style family homes, and geodesic domes. One neighbor might show off his home with a meticulously landscaped garden; another, not caring to commit to a weekly routine of lawn mowing and raking, has no garden or lawn at all. Corralitos is presently about as far as a community can get from the design and character conformity planners have built into such communities as Fair View Village.

As different as these neighbors are from one another in the style of their homes or gardens, visitors do not come away from Corralitos without remarking on its character and charm. In addition to the wide variety of homes that exist in Corralitos there are also popular retail businesses and productive farms. But, for all the pleasure and freedom Corralitos affords its residents, the town is under fire from the county government to approve a community plan that the community has had little to do with.

County government officials -- using public/private partnerships with the City and Regional Planning School of California State University and Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) like the Corralitos Valley Community Council -- are driving the development and approval of a community plan. The planners, true to their training, have held facilitated meetings to create a "consensus based" plan for the town. The planners claim their intention is to preserve the character of the town of Corralitos. By design, the plan as written will force homeowners to capitulate to the planner's vision of a rural community lifestyle, with very specific restrictions on landscaping materials, home designs, and property usage.

The Corralitos Community Plan covers nearly every aspect of life in Corralitos. The small group of individuals vested in developing the plan has complaints and instructions for residents covering transportation, lighting, parks, business, watersheds, viewsheds, and gardening. Examining just a few pages of the plan turns up some amazing criticisms of life in Corralitos. Here are a few characteristics of the town that are problems in the eyes of the planning committee:

The plan complains that "the construction of some buildings on private lands has detracted from the scenic qualities of the valley". This implies that the community planners do not care about the economic or pleasurable use of private property by individual property owners. Instead all use must meet the collective approval of the planners and the "stakeholders" they have selected to sit on the Corralitos Valley Community Council.

The plan states there must be "compatibility between current and future buildings or structures and local design character". This statement implies that Corralitos has a design character, and that a homogenization of design must occur for Corralitos to retain its character.

"Existing community buildings do not and outdoor public places do not have any shared design elements." It is curious that a plan purporting to develop community character complains that there isn't any conformity in the community design elements. One wonders; does a community with character require community buildings and outdoor public places to look alike? Is collectively inspired visual harmony more important than a property owner's right to control the design and cost of his building?

The planners attack local businesses in their plan. "Some commercial facilities have design features that are not in harmony with the Corralitos community." Planners expect existing businesses to redesign their facilities -- at their own expense -- to meet an unknown design criteria determined by "stakeholders" who claim to have a right to control the property of others.

Signs in the area do not display the correct style and type. That is, the planners complain that signs for businesses are too varied. Each and every business in Corralitos displays signage that identifies the type of business conducted and at a cost that is determined by the owners of the business. Yet the planners would require all businesses to use their guidelines for signage, regardless of whether it is customary or appropriate for the business, and the cost of which must be borne by large and small businesses alike.

The planners further propose to restrict use of private property in Corralitos in the following ways:

• Driveways in new developments must be shared -- private drives must be eliminated.
  
• Fencing materials must be made of field stone, wood, recycled simulated wood or wrought iron. Chain link fencing is not allowed.
  
• Driveways must be paved with salt rock, engineered gravel, bricks or pavers. Asphalt or other economical materials are prohibited.
  
• Planners suggest that only native plants be used in landscaping on private property.

Each of these elements forces a monotonous uniformity on Corralitos property owners and will raise the cost of owning a home or business there because property owners will have to pay to conform, driving away affordability. Other proposals in the plan affect the rights of property owners to privacy and force some owners to allow hikers and walkers access to their property.

In a town that has thrived on "live and let live", this new way of community design imposes a value system that is in direct opposition to the desires and lifestyles of the residents of Corralitos. The community plan has turned out to be a collectivist vision for the town that flies in the face of the individualism and respect for private property that was once the hallmark of a free America.

The plan for Corralitos has been in the works for several years now. When first presented with the plans, Corralitos residents vociferously defended their community against the visual homogenization and collective oversight of private property by the non-elected Corralitos Valley Community Council. As a result, the planners took their plan underground, denying residents access to their meeting times and to the "data" they have collected. Many residents of Corralitos may be unaware that this plan is still active, and that at some point in time, probably without public notice, it will be presented to the Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors for incorporation into the Santa Cruz County General Plan.

Corralitos is clearly a desirable place to live. Placing restrictive covenants on property owners, as suggested in the plan, will not make Corralitos a better place to live. Instead, the planners will make Corralitos conform to every other village and town that use "smart growth" designs. Once these plans become part of the General Plan, the County can begin to enforce them on the residents, against their will. As a result, the town will no longer be a unique community that reflects the individuality and character of its residents. With this community plan, Corralitos is on track to become just another passenger on the "smart growth" train to the land of bland.

Corralitos is one of several towns in Santa Cruz County with community plan development under way. Planners may not have discovered your town yet; it is just a matter of time before they do. The Federal government has become the machine of Sustainable Development and its legions, the well funded foundations and local politicians, are working hard to bring these unique forms of social control, smart growth and community plans to your town.

[hedgetrimmer]

Corralitos in danger!

[hedgetrimmer]

Santa Cruz CA PING

[baltodog]

"Each of these elements forces a monotonous uniformity..."

They tried this somewhere else and it didn't work....ummmm...yeah, that's right, the USSR!

[hedgetrimmer]

They tried this somewhere else and it didn't work....ummmm...yeah, that's right, the USSR!

You've won the contest on the first try! Congratulations.

[hedgetrimmer]

Sustainable development PING

[hedgetrimmer]

Community planning FYI

[EggsAckley]

Thanks for the ping hedge!! I had no idea this was going on. This is terrible. Corralitos is one of the most interesting villages around here.

So, does this mean that Corralitos Market won't "fit in?"

Geeze this stuff is scary.

[applpie]

The operative word "NGO".....same old power grab to give UNELECTED PEOPLE power.

[hedgetrimmer]

The Corralitos market has had to make numerous changes already. I mean to ask Dave if the new paint job was his own design, or if the "planners" had suggestions for him.

They have already had to stripe out at least one of their parking spaces (made it no parking as a result of the anti-car attitude in the county) to suit the planners. I would bet their signs are not considered "harmonious" as well. Even their smokehouse had to be moved, I'm told.

[macbee]

Hey, they don't call it "The People's Republic of Santa Cruz" for nothing. Arch-leftist political and cultural dominance has been the norm there for well over a decade and perhaps much longer.

[hedgetrimmer]

Did you see this article in the Sentinel today?


Santa Cruz residents unload on council candidates at forum

"high-density housing can be done in a quality way."

But not in Santa Cruz!

http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/archive/2004/October/15/local/stories/03local.htm

[EggsAckley]

Hedge, I just emailed this to Michael Zwerling at KSCO. I strongly suggested that he do a Saturday Special on this. He's done "sustainable development" issues, but not specifically on Corralitos.

I am furious!!

[hedgetrimmer]

It appears that some are trying to fight back. God speed to them!

[hedgetrimmer]

If you followed the link to the Corralitoscalifornia website you can see part of the plan, they don't have the whole thing posted yet.

Its an incredibly anti-American piece of work if you ask me. I have the whole plan, its 70 pages long-- I hope they get the whole thing up there soon so people can see what these "Planners" really have in mind.

The ch. 7-9 are pretty telling though, with restrictions all over the place on private property and travel.

[Carry_Okie]

Driveways must be paved with salt rock, engineered gravel, bricks or pavers. Asphalt or other economical materials are prohibited.

Considering the condition of county roads, this is an absolute scream. It will play hell with low-impact siting because people will do what they can to shorten the driveway instead of putting the house in a better place.

BTW, what the hell is a "salt rock" pavement? I googled it and got garbage. Is this another one of Granite Rock's little monopolistic scams similar to the county requirement for a foot of baserock on logging roads?

[hedgetrimmer]

BTW, what the hell is a "salt rock" pavement?

[hedgetrimmer]

Missed a bracket.

I have no idea what sal rock pavement is. You may be right its a boondoggle. As for the low-impact siting, these guys never consider their little totalitarian ideas might have consequences that make things worse. But every idea in their plan makes life here worse.

[GOP_1900AD]

RE: "Some commercial facilities have design features that are not in harmony with the Corralitos community."

Here in them thar Belmont hills we have the same bunch of BS going on. Starting in the early 90s, a cabal of carpet bagger, wealthy, Lefty, aging hippies became a majority at the council. First they massively reduced all slope density formulas and banned outright any development in certain areas. Then they started up a design review board. Finally came the visioning sessions. Naturally, such sessions are well attended by leisure oriented people who don't work very much and just happen to be the main support group for the elites.

Also, not surprisingly, their ideas of "compatible designs" are pure New England and they hate the native Southwestern styles of California. There is a strip mall along El Camino that they have a hair up their butts about because it's a red tile roof stucco walled job and does not fit in with the clap board, cedar shingled wall looks that they are after.

On a somewhat related note a few weeks ago I was sitting in a coffee shop in nearby San Carlos and could not help overhearing a couple of old hippie Marxist civic activist types as they conversed. They were overtly planning out their positions for an upcoming planning commission meeting. They explicitly stated that they wanted to crank down on square footage limits and, get this, specifically micromanage things like the number of bedrooms and bathrooms per home, in order to promote childless couples and gays to move in. I'm not making this up, they said it and I heard it.

TAKE BACK CALIFORNIA!

[Homer_J_Simpson]

Yikes! Corralitos is in my ZIP code. Better ping for later.

[hedgetrimmer]

They explicitly stated that they wanted to crank down on square footage limits and, get this, specifically micromanage things like the number of bedrooms and bathrooms per home, in order to promote childless couples and gays to move in

I have heard this kind of talk by our planners in Santa Cruz county at planning department meetings! They will restrict residency of government funded complexes to named income levels and occupations and whether a person is single or elderly.

This is such an affront to a once free people that we have soviet commissions directing tax money to projects that destroy the free market for housing. It really burns me up!