I must begin this editorial with the caveat that in order to clearly report the events of the 11-15-12 CCPAC meeting it would simply be an exercise in repetition. I must also state that my understanding of a community plan is to
determine the best use of land within a boundary for the benefit of the members of the
community, with goals of improving social and economic environments and ensuring orderly development.
The CCPAC meetings began in earnest in April of 2012, with each agenda produced and presented by the county planning department, with community boundary and land designation taking center stage. At each of the meetings these issues continue. Vision statements were just recently brought up at the October meeting after the committee was asked to go about town and look for areas where they would like schools, parks, etc, without knowledge of goals or vision, let alone land use designation for the areas in question. In addition, after multiple requests from the committee for the county to produce a boundary map that they had requested, one was finally produced following property lines and AFTER county claimed to have discussed the land use designation with the potentially affected property owners.
The committee is a collection of land owners, property owners, business persons and community volunteers...many professionals in their fields...which begets a relative sense of intelligence. So the mere fact that they are being spoon fed information in small increments is frustrating as a reporter, after all how can one make an educated decision with only partial information? It is also frustrating as a citizen that at each new meeting a new project comes to light, a new development, a new plan, etc.
Each meeting the boundary lines are revisited due to a new potential development that has been brought before the committee.
The initial boundary map included only projects that the county had already approved or were in the process, these projects combined with empty buildable lots, equals to approximately a build out population of 27,000 people. Yes, you read correctly, 27,000 people. Which then begets the question how in the world did this happen? Unfortunately we will not know anytime soon for the county planning is under a new reign.
So this committee is saddled with attempting to come up with boundary lines that will allow growth that can offer jobs, when the growth already approved by the county is residential. Not an envious position.
Suggestions of commercial growth land trading for roadways to waterfront access and development with small commercials centers at the base of the new bridge were forthcoming. This led to acting CCPAC chairman Hutchings to clearly state the committee had already voted there would be no road to New Melones included in the Copperopolis Community Plan boundary map. But the previous floor dialogue did raise the question as to how a developer could know exactly where the new bridge is being built when this hasn't even been disclosed to the public.
Tom Garcia (county road dept) reminded the committee - as he does at each meeting - that if the boundary continues to widen, whether to include or not to include new developments, the benefit basin increases. Which means each new home built, either by a single family or a development, must pay higher taxes to cover the ANTICIPATED expense of POTENTIAL development.
If you would like your voice heard or are interested in the Community Plan Process please attend the next meeting on December 3, 2012 at 6 pm at the Copper Fire station on Main Street.
CCPAC would also like you input for the goals of Copperopolis...please click the following link to the Copper Gazette article written regarding community input. CCPAC COMMUNITY INPUT ARTICLE CLICK HERE
By, Charity Maness
