 |
Home | Issues & Actions | About |
Archive Page This page is available as an archive to previous versions of LandWatch websites. |
KUSP LandWatch
News
Week of October 9, 2006 to October 13, 2006
Week of October 9, 2006 to October 13, 2006
KUSP provided a brief Land Use Report on KUSP Radio from January 2003 to May 2016. Archives of past transcripts are available here.
Week of October 9, 2006 to October 13, 2006
- Monday, October 9, 2006
Land Use and the General Plan
- Tuesday, October 10, 2006
Land Use and the General Plan #2
- Wednesday, October 11, 2006
Land Use and the General Plan #3
- Thursday, October 12, 2006
Land Use and the General Plan #4
- Friday, October 13
Land Use and the General Plan #5
The following Land Use Reports have been presented on KUSP Radio by Gary A. Patton. The Wittwer & Parkin law firm is located in Santa Cruz, California, and practices environmental and governmental law. As part of its practice, the law firm files litigation and takes other action on behalf of its clients, which are typically private individuals, governmental agencies, environmental organizations, or community groups. Whenever the Land Use Report comments on an issue with which the Wittwer & Parkin law firm is involved on behalf of a client, Mr. Patton will make this relationship clear, as part of his commentary. Mr. Patton’s comments do not represent the views of Wittwer & Parkin, LLP, KUSP Radio, nor of any of its sponsors.
| Monday, October 9, 2006 Land Use and the General Plan |
 |
| The City of Santa Cruz is updating its General Plan. So are other cities and counties in the Central Coast region. Monterey County has been updating its General Plan since 1999, and the Monterey County Board of Supervisors may actually vote on a new General Plan within the next several months, though that probably won’t be the end of the story. Things are complicated in Monterey County, where the Board of Supervisors has been trying to prevent a public vote on a “Community General Plan” that was qualified for the ballot by an initiative petition. I can’t help but think that Monterey County voters will ultimately get a chance to express themselves directly. They’ve certainly earned the right to do that, after seven years of participation, and the drafting and qualification of the community-based General Plan.
If you live in a community where a General Plan Update is underway, or about to get underway, I hope you’ll get involved. The City of Santa Cruz makes it easy. You can “subscribe” to email notices about upcoming General Plan events. I’d like to make it easy, too, so this week I am going to devote the Land Use Report to a series of presentations on key General Plan concepts. The links below will give you access to the written materials to which I am going to refer. For KUSP, this is Gary Patton.
|
|
| Tuesday, October 10, 2006 Land Use and the General Plan #2 |
|
|
Each day this week, I’ll be giving a short summary of some key General Plan concepts, and I’ll be referring to a publication that I think is an excellent guide to the General Plan process. It’s called Land Use and the General Plan, and is available for download on the website of LandWatch Monterey County. Let’s start by remembering that every community must have a General Plan, with seven mandated “elements,” including “land use,” “housing,” “conservation,” “open space,” “circulation,” “noise,” and “safety.” The General Plan is the “Constitution” of land use for the community, which means that every planning decision must be “consistent” with the General Plan. The power of the General Plan comes from that legal requirement of “consistency.” If the General Plan says something, and says it clearly, then every future project decision must be consistent with what the General Plan says. Absent a clear General Plan statement, every development project will reflect the decisions made by the City Council or Board of Supervisors on a project by project basis. If you want to get the most impact from your participation, work to make sure you have a strong set of General Plan policies that clearly say what the community wants. Make the community’s policy decisions upfront. Otherwise, you’ll have to fight about every single future project. Check out the “Conclusion” in Land Use and the General Plan, for a fuller explanation. For KUSP, this is Gary Patton.
|
|
| Wednesday, October 11, 2006 Land Use and the General Plan #3 |
|
Making the community’s land use policy decisions upfront, through strong and clear statements in the General Plan, may be the most important thing to do, to achieve a good General Plan for your community. But what about specific concerns, like transportation and traffic? Land Use and the General Plan has a chapter on “Transportation and Transit,” and here’s what it says: It is not possible to build our way out of our transportation and traffic problems by constructing new roads. Instead, Land Use and the General Plan proposes an incremental approach. We got ourselves into the congestion problems we face one project at a time. We need to make sure that each new project helps move us in the other direction. Specifically, Land Use and the General Plan recommends that the following language should be part of every community General Plan: All residential, commercial, industrial, and office developments within the local community shall utilize and incorporate all applicable alternative transportation strategies and techniques [as outlined on a list of such strategies maintained by the jurisdiction]. I’m summarizing, in very short compass, a much longer explanation of how simple General Plan policies can start to help, rather than hinder, our desire to reduce traffic congestion. Get the full text by clicking on the links belwo. For KUSP, this is Gary Patton.
|
|
| Thursday, October 12, 2006 Land Use and the General Plan #4 |
|
A community General Plan, by definition, imposes requirements on each one of us, as we may seek to change the use our property. According to Land Use and the General Plan, the publication I’ve been referring to, it’s critically important to address the “property rights” issue right in the General Plan. One of the things I most like about this LandWatch publication is that it suggests specific language to be included in the General Plan, which helps interested members of the public go from a “concept” to the “specifics” of how that concept might actually be realized. You need to read the whole discussion to get a full appreciation of the issue, but here’s the language suggested by Land Use and the General Plan: Neither the implementation of this General Plan, nor any of its Elements, shall constitute an unconstitutional taking of property or property rights, and the General Plan and its Elements shall not deprive any landowner of any vested right to develop his or her property. This General Plan shall be interpreted so as to be consistent with all federal and state laws, rules, and regulations governing the use of real property. With that language as a foundation for the local General Plan, property owners, residents, and elected officials can all feel secure that the restrictions that may be established in the General Plan will not go “overboard,” treating property owners unfairly, or constituting a “taking” that the community will have to pay for. For KUSP, this is Gary Patton.
|
|
| Friday, October 13 Land Use and the General Plan #5 |
|
|
This week, I’ve been summarizing some of the key concepts discussed in a publication called Land Use and the General Plan, published by LandWatch Monterey County. Land Use and the General Plan is sixty-four pages long, so I am obviously not able to give you a very comprehensive review. I do encourage you to get involved in the General Plan Update process for your community, and also encourage you to read the entirety of Land Use and the General Plan. One of its chapters is entitled “Permit Process Reform,” and discussing this chapter may be a good way to close out the week. There is probably nothing more frustrating (in my experience) than the permit process. Land Use and the General Plan does provide some helpful guidance. In essence, the point I made on Tuesday, as I began this series, is the key to permit process reform. It’s critically important for landowners, developers, citizens and residents, and the elected officials who oversee the planning process, that there be “certainty,” upfront, about what the rules are. If a community is willing to make its major planning decisions in advance, by adopting clear and strong policy statements, it won’t be necessary to have the kind of exhausting and mutually frustrating permit process that is typical of local planning everywhere. Getting elected officials to make tough decisions upfront, as a matter of policy, isn’t easy, but it definitely works, and helps make the permit process both fair and expeditious. For KUSP, this is Gary Patton.
|
|
Archives of past transcripts are available here
|
CONTACT 306 Capitol Street #101 PO Box 1876 Phone (831) 759-2824 Fax (831) 759-2825 |
|