 |
Home | Issues & Actions | About |
Archive Page This page is available as an archive to previous versions of LandWatch websites. |
KUSP LandWatch
News
Week of April 7, 2008 to April 11, 2008
Week of April 7, 2008 to April 11, 2008
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 April 7, 2008 to April 11, 2008
- Monday, April 7, 2008
Certificates of Compliance
- Tuesday, April 8, 2008
Wireless in San Luis Obispo County
- Wednesday, April 9, 2008
Tomorrow at the SLO Planning Commission
- Thursday, April 10, 2008
The City of Santa Cruz General Plan 2030
- Friday, April 11, 2008
Federal and State Electeds All In One Place
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, April 7, 2008 Certificates of Compliance |
 |
My “rule of thumb” is that a good indicator of how serious a local government is about land use policy can be measured by how easily, or not, the particular local government allows landowners to “subdivide” their existing parcels of land. Creating even one new parcel of land causes very significant economic and environmental impacts, so allowing the creation of a new parcel is a very important decision. A property owner has no “right” to a division of his or her land, yet many local governments approve new subdivisions, particularly small subdivisions, without a great deal of scrutiny. The state’s Subdivision Map Act and local ordinances govern the subdivision process, and conditions are almost always imposed. Thus, even when it’s easy to get a subdivision approved, landowners often try to find a way around the requirements. One technique is the so-called “certificate of compliance” procedure, which involves a claim by the landowner that no subdivision approval is needed, because a subdivision was approved long ago, usually in the early 20th century. New housing in Speckles, in Monterey County, demonstrates the potential impacts that can result from this kind of “recognition” of parcels claimed to have been created long ago. This week, both the Monterey County Planning Commission and the Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors will be considering issues relating to “certificates of compliance.” More information can be found below. For KUSP, this is Gary Patton.
|
|
| Tuesday, April 8, 2008 Wireless in San Luis Obispo County |
|
Today, the Board of Supervisors of San Luis Obispo County will hold a public hearing on an appeal by Greenspace, the Cambria Land Trust, and LandWatch San Luis Obispo County. These two grassroots organizations have challenged the County’s approval of an unmanned wireless communications facility, to be located in the Coastal Zone, approximately 1,000 feet West of Highway One, in the vicinity of Huntington Road. If you are interested in this geographic area, and in protecting coastal viewsheds, or if you care about the placement of wireless communications facilities more generally, you may want to attend the hearing this morning. More information is found below. The staff report available online doesn’t include the materials submitted by Greenspace and LandWatch San Luis Obispo County, but it’s pretty clear that these organizations think that the environmental impacts of the proposed cell tower and its associated apparatus have not been adequately considered. It’s hard for local governments to “turn down” cell tower facilities, because many of the issues involved have been “preempted” by the federal government. Impacts in the Coastal Zone, though, are something that the County can take into account, and they have every right to require a study of alternative sites before signing off on what the telephone company wants. In this case, it seems that no alternatives analysis has been completed. For KUSP, this is Gary Patton.
|
|
| Wednesday, April 9, 2008 Tomorrow at the SLO Planning Commission |
|
The San Luis Obispo County Planning Commission will meet tomorrow morning, starting at 8:45, and there are a couple of important land use policy items on the agenda. First, a public hearing will be held in connection with a proposal to amend the County’s Growth Management Ordinance, to simplify the ordinance for better understanding and efficiency. One person’s “simplification” can be another person’s “radical revision,” and if you care about the rules governing the growth and development of San Luis Obispo County, you’d be wise to read through the proposed changes to make up your own mind. I’ve provided a link to the staff materials below. Second, the Commission will consider sending a letter to the Board of Supervisors, urging a revision to the County Code relating to “AG Clusters.” The proposed letter says that the “intent” of the County’s “AG Clustering” policies has not worked out in practice. Instead of protecting agricultural land, the policies seem to have created more residential growth and development and have actually undermined agriculture in San Luis Obispo County. If that’s what the policies have been doing, it’s not surprising. Often, local governments try to “have it both ways,” instead of “making up their mind what they want.” Agriculture and residential development really are two different things. Both obviously have their place, but it’s usually not the same place! For KUSP, this is Gary Patton.
|
|
| Thursday, April 10, 2008 The City of Santa Cruz General Plan 2030 |
|
State law requires each local government (and by “local government” I mean cities and counties) to adopt a General Plan. Here are the “topics” which each General Plan must cover:
The state law calls these topic areas the “Elements” of the General Plan. There are seven required elements, and they must be internally consistent. As an example, if the local General Plan designates an area for high-density development, the transportation facilities specified in the General Plan must be adequate to serve the development proposed. While state law requires local governments to address the topics I listed, state law doesn’t really tell the local government what their policies have to be. You have to have a “Conservation Element” in the local General Plan, but state law doesn’t really require you to “conserve” any land in particular. Besides the seven elements I listed, a local government can also adopt other elements, if it wants to. Check out the recently released draft of the City of Santa Cruz 2030 General Plan for an example. The document is available online, and begins with a discussion of “historic preservation, arts and culture.” If you live in the City of Santa Cruz, incidentally, now is a very good time to get involved with the General Plan revision that is currently underway. The new General Plan is still a “draft,” which means your participation can change the shape of the future of the city. For KUSP, this is Gary Patton.
|
|
| Friday, April 11, 2008 Federal and State Electeds All In One Place |
|
The Fort Ord Reuse Authority (usually called FORA) meets today. The meeting starts at 3:00 o’clock this afternoon, at the FORA Conference Facility, located at 201 13th Street, Building 2925, in Marina. You can get more information, including a map, by tracking down the transcript for today’s Land Use Report on the KUSP website. FORA has a large impact on land use, water, and transportation issues on the lands of the former Fort Ord. Anyone who is seriously interested in the land use policies affecting the future of Monterey County ought to think about taking in a FORA meeting from time to time. When I worked at LandWatch Monterey County, I attended quite a few FORA meetings, and noticed a significant lack of public participation. Maybe, if there had been more public participation, the scenic qualities of the Highway One corridor would have been better preserved by FORA, and the availability of affordable housing would be greater. Getting involved in government can pay off with policies that make a difference for our future, and today’s FORA meeting is a great “one stop shop” opportunity to see a number of your local elected officials in action. Scheduled to make presentations this afternoon are Congress Member Sam Farr; State Senator Jeff Denham; State Senator Abel Maldonado; Assembly Member John Laird; and Assembly Member Anna Caballero. To see a list of the local officials who serve on the FORA Board, see below. 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 |
|