The local General Plan is supposed to outline the long-term land use future that the community wants. But if conditions change significantly, and the plan doesn’t, there really isn’t any plan at all, and the future of the community is determined on a project-by-project, basis. That’s the kind of “planning” that has typified development in the rural portions of Monterey County, which is operating on a General Plan adopted in 1982.

In 1999, the Monterey County Board of Supervisors began a long overdue General Plan Update process, but they still haven’t completed it. The first two drafts were sent back for revision, at the request of development interests. In 2004, a “third draft” General Plan Update was unanimously recommended to the Board by the Planning Commission. But again acting at the request of development interests, the Board refused even to consider that third draft, and directed that the entire process “start over.” The Board is now working on General Plan Update version #5.

Tomorrow, the Board will decide whether to “speed up” the General Plan review process, as requested by development interests. The idea (after so much delay) is to ensure that current, pro-development Supervisor Ila Mettee-McCutchon will get to vote on the plan, instead of her elected successor, Jane Parker.

If you want to weigh in, be at the Board Chambers at 1:30 p.m. tomorrow.

For KUSP, this is Gary Patton.

More Information

Monterey County General Plan Update website
http://www.co.monterey.ca.us/
planning/gpu/draftNov2007/default.htm

Agenda for the Board of Supervisors
http://monterey.granicus.com/
ViewPublisher.php?view_id=5

A community’s “police power” allows the community to adopt regulations to guide future development. Those regulations can protect open space, prevent development where infrastructure doesn’t exist, and stop development on productive farmlands. That’s only a “partial list” of what the police power can accomplish, by way of regulation.

Regulatory programs are not the only way to protect the open space values that many people care about so much. Both privately funded and publicly funded programs can be established to buy land for its open space values, or to buy “easements” on land that will protect open space. In Santa Clara County, that approach led to the creation of the Santa Clara County Open Space Authority. This public agency established a benefit assessment to provide about $8 million dollars a year to acquire land and easements to protect Santa Clara County open space.

Unfortunately for open space advocates, the California Supreme Court has recently ruled that this benefit assessment (which was approved by a majority vote of the property owners) wasn’t legal. A lawsuit by so-called “taxpayer” advocates convinced the Court that this was actually a special tax, and needed a 2/3rds vote. A 2/3rds, “supermajority” vote requirement means that a minority can prevent the majority from doing what they want to do. In this case, saving open space in Santa Clara County.

For KUSP, this is Gary Patton.

More Information

Link to Supreme Court decision
http://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov/search/
case/mainCaseScreen.cfm?dist=0&doc_id=386411&
doc_no=S136468&search=attorney&start=1&query_
attyLastName=parrinello&query_attyLawFirm=

Tomorrow, the San Luis Obispo County Planning Commission will be taking up a number of important items. One of them is the possible adoption of an inclusionary housing ordinance. An inclusionary housing ordinance requires developers to set aside a certain percentage of all new residential development, for sale to persons who can’t afford to buy a home at the market rate. The specific proposal being considered would allow a long “phase in” period, making things easier for developers. If you care about affordable housing issues in San Luis Obispo County, you should plan to be at the Planning Commission meeting.

Also on the agenda is a continued hearing on the Santa Margarita Ranch development. I believe that this is the largest and most controversial development proposal currently pending in San Luis Obispo County. The request is for a three-phase Major Agricultural Cluster Subdivision to divide the 6,195-acre Ranch into 111 residential parcels, three open space parcels, and one remainder parcel (not proposed for development at this time). The EIR identifies possible impacts on agricultural resources; air quality; biological resources; cultural resources; drainage; erosion; sedimentation; geologic stability; land use; public safety; public services; recreation; noise; transportation and circulation; visual resources; and water and wastewater.

For KUSP, this is Gary Patton.

More Information

Agenda for June 24, 2008 Planning Commission meeting
http://slocounty.granicus.com/
AgendaViewer.php?view_id=3&event_id=47

Senate Bill 97, enacted in 2007, requires the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research to develop guidelines under the California Environmental Quality Act (or CEQA). These guidelines are to specify feasible mitigation measures for greenhouse gas emissions associated with transportation or energy consumption, and that means land use.

What’s at stake is how CEQA relates to our efforts to meet the global warming crisis. AB 32, as overseen by the Air Resources Board, is supposed to set up a comprehensive program to roll back current emissions, so that when 2020 comes around we will be generating no more greenhouse gases than we were in 1990. That goal, which requires a rollback of current emissions, will be hard to reach, but what makes it even harder is the fact that we are continuing to grow and develop, and are thus adding new emissions, even as we’re supposed to be rolling back current emissions. CEQA is the environmental law that examines these new projects, on a project-by-project basis, and if CEQA doesn’t address this problem, we’ll fail in our efforts to meet the AB 32 goals.

Developers want to minimize new requirements imposed through CEQA. Environmental organizations and attorneys who deal with CEQA issues are paying close attention, to make sure that doesn’t happen. You can get more information below.

For KUSP, this is Gary Patton.

More Information

Legislative information on SB 97
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/
postquery?bill_number=sb_97&sess=
CUR&house=B&author=dutton

OPR website
http://www.opr.ca.gov/

CEQA Guidelines and Greenhouse Gases
http://opr.ca.gov/index.php?a=ceqa/index.html

CEQA Website
http://ceres.ca.gov/ceqa/

As I noted on Tuesday, there are really three basic ways to protect open space lands: First, generate private monies to purchase them, or purchase easements; second, generate public money to purchase them, or purchase easements. Third, use the regulatory powers of the local community to establish a responsible and well-justified set of land use rules that will protect and preserve open space values.

The difficulty of using public money is pretty clear, after that Supreme Court decision. If generating funds requires a 2/3rds vote, a minority can prevent the majority from raising funds, and we won’t have enough money to do what needs to be done.

The problem with generating private money is that there is never enough money to preserve all the lands that need to be protected. In a San Benito County case I mentioned last week, it cost $2.2 million dollars to protect 540 acres, or a little over $4,000 per acre. The State Department of Conservation says that there are about 674,000 acres of agricultural land in San Benito County, so it would cost about $3.5 billion to save it all, at that per acre price. And that’s just San Benito County, second smallest county in the state.

The willingness of our communities to use their land use policy powers to protect open space values will determine whether or not those values are preserved.

For KUSP, this is Gary Patton.