 |
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 19, 2009 to October 23, 2009
Week of October 19, 2009 to October 23, 2009
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 19, 2009 to October 23, 2009
- Monday, October 19, 2009
Carmel Valley Incorporation
- Tuesday, October 20, 2009
Carmel Valley Incorporation, II
- Wednesday, October 21, 2009
The Tejon Ranch Agreement
- Thursday, October 22, 2009
A Planning Commission Hearing Tomorrow
- Friday, October 23, 2009
When Is It "Too Late" To Object?
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 19, 2009 Carmel Valley Incorporation |
 |
|
Our community decisions about how we "use" the land will not only affect the natural environment, they will affect our local economy, and how successful we will be in achieving our social equity goals. Land use policy is, largely, established through decisions made at the local level of government. Both cities and counties must adopt and implement comprehensive and internally consistent General Plans, and all of the land use project decisions they make are legally required to be "consistent" with the policies of the local General Plan. If you understand the basics of land use policy, as just outlined, then you understand why one of the most fundamental questions that will determine what kind of land use policies your community has is WHO makes the decisions. We live in a "representative" democracy, and our locally elected representatives make land use policy decisions on our behalf. WHICH local government officials make these critical land use policy determinations is of critical importance. In November, voters in Carmel Valley will make a fundamental policy choice. They will decide whether land use policy decisions affecting Carmel Valley will be made by the Monterey County Board of Supervisors, none of whom happen to live in Carmel Valley, or by elected officials from a new Town of Carmel Valley, all of whom will have to live in Carmel Valley. More on this tomorrow! For KUSP, this is Gary Patton.
|
|
| Tuesday, October 20, 2009 Carmel Valley Incorporation, II |
|
Changing the local government entity in charge of making land use decisions will have an obvious impact on what sort of future land use decisions will likely be made. In Carmel Valley, the Monterey County Board of Supervisors is currently in charge of land use. A "Yes" vote on the incorporation proposal on the November ballot will mean that a new Town of Carmel Valley will be created, and the elected Town Council will then make future land use decisions. Most centrally, a "Yes" vote would mean that all future land use decisions affecting Carmel Valley will be made by persons who live in Carmel Valley. A member of the Board of Supervisors must live in the District that he or she represents. This means that four out of the five decision makers on the Board of Supervisors will always live somewhere else. Right now, of course, no member of the Board actually lives in Carmel Valley. How important is it that land use decision makers actually live in the area affected by their votes? Carmel Valley residents have traveled time and again to the County Courthouse in Salinas, objecting to various development proposals in Carmel Valley, and they almost always lose. They do get the vote of their local Supervisor, Dave Potter, but they seldom get the three votes necessary to make a majority. Those urging a "Yes" vote on the Carmel Valley incorporation think that changing who votes will change what happens. For KUSP, this is Gary Patton.
|
|
| Wednesday, October 21, 2009 The Tejon Ranch Agreement |
|
The Tejon Ranch is the largest landholding in the state of California owned by a single, private owner. It is, in fact, almost exactly the same size as the entirety of Santa Cruz County, and it is truly spectacular land. I’ve put links to a few photos in the transcript of today’s Land Use Report. The landowner, the Tejon Ranch Company, wants to develop some of its landholdings, and most typically, a landowner with development in mind files one or more development applications, and then goes through an approval process that often results in a development approval, but with a requirement that various "mitigation" measures be taken. Typically, for a property like the Tejon Ranch, such mitigation measures would include setting aside areas for permanent conservation. The Conservation Agreement negotiated between the Tejon Ranch Company and the Sierra Club, the Natural Resources Defense Council, Audubon California, the Endangered Habitats League and the Planning and Conservation League essentially reversed this process. It set aside about 90% of the Ranch for permanent conservation, with no promise that any future development would be approved. On October 1st, the Conservation Agreement received the Governor’s Environmental and Economic Leadership Award. On the following Tuesday, the Kern County Board of Supervisors approved one of the development projects proposed for the remainder of the Ranch. You can learn more on the KUSP website. For KUSP, this is Gary Patton.
|
|
| Thursday, October 22, 2009 A Planning Commission Hearing Tomorrow |
|
Tomorrow, the San Luis Obispo County Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on proposed General Plan and ordinance revisions relating to grading and stormwater management. Revisions are proposed to the Land Use Ordinance, the Coastal Zone Land Use Ordinance, Coastal Plan Policies, and the North Coast Area Plan to incorporate state-mandated General Construction Permit standards relating to stormwater discharges, and incorporate the Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System post-construction design standards into the County’s local ordinances. In addition, the changes provide for enforcement of the new ordinance requirements, and include other County-initiated ordinance revisions pertaining to grading. A Final Environmental Impact Report should be available to the Planning Commission as it considers these proposals. The EIR addresses potential impacts on agricultural resources, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, hydrology and water quality, geologic resources, noise, public services, transportation and circulation, visual resources, and water resources. Mitigation measures are proposed to address identified impacts. If you would like to get a real taste for how local regulations can help protect the natural environment from the consequences of human activities, think about attending the Planning Commission meeting tomorrow. You can get more information on the KUSP website. For KUSP, this is Gary Patton.
|
|
| Friday, October 23, 2009 When Is It "Too Late" To Object? |
|
According to a story in the Mercury News, certain members of the Menlo Park City Council took exception to a Menlo Park citizens group opposed to the conversion of a former car dealership to a development that includes 51,000 square feet of retail uses and almost 59,000 square feet of non-medical office space. The group’s attorney, Tom Lippe, submitted a 29-page letter with nearly 60 attachments, objecting to the environmental review carried out on the project, and he made this submission to City staff at 5:00 p.m., when the Council was scheduled to hear the matter at 7:00 p.m. During the meeting, Council Members criticized the group for submitting its letter so late. According to the Mercury News, the Mayor said, "I'm very disturbed by a letter arriving at 5 o'clock before a council meeting at 7 that has this number of pages that is completely outside the deadline." According to Mr. Lippe, the Council’s remarks were very intimidating to members of the group, who were uneasy about speaking to reporters after the City Council comments. Just to be clear, while it is always better to get comments in early, neither Mr. Lippe nor the Concerned Citizens of Menlo Park were "outside the deadline." The deadline for comments, including written comments, is the close of the public hearing. So, if you’re ever in this situation, don’t be intimidated. You have every right to comment right up until the gavel falls on the last public hearing held on any planning item. For KUSP, this is Gary Patton. More Information
Mercury News Story on Menlo Park Dispute |
|
Archives of past transcripts are available here
|
CONTACT 306 Capitol Street #101 PO Box 1876 Phone (831) 759-2824 Fax (831) 759-2825 |
|