 |
Home | Issues & Actions | About |
Archive Page This page is available as an archive to previous versions of LandWatch websites. |
KUSP LandWatch
News
Week of January 3, 2011 to January 7, 2011
Week of January 3, 2011 to January 7, 2011
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 January 3, 2011 to January 7, 2011
- Monday, January 3, 2011
Zoning Exceptions In Santa Cruz County
- Tuesday, January 4, 2011
More on “Minor Exceptions”
- Wednesday, January 5, 2011
The Public And Permit Applicants
- Thursday, January 6, 2011
A Better Kind Of Permit System
- Friday, January 7, 2011
Affordable Housing Guidelines
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, January 3, 2011 Zoning Exceptions In Santa Cruz County |
 |
The California Environmental Quality Act, or CEQA, has impacts far beyond issues related to the “environment.” The mechanisms established by CEQA guarantee an ample opportunity for public participation, an opportunity for public involvement that doesn’t exist except as part of the CEQA “environmental review” process. When local government leaders and developers of all types complain about CEQA, they are often actually complaining that members of the public have been given such a powerful tool to become engaged in the decision making process. Thanks to CEQA, decisions are not only the subject of negotiation and discussion between the government and the person proposing some project requiring governmental approval. Members of the public are given real standing and real power through CEQA. To utilize that power, members of the public need to pay attention, and then spend the time necessary to find out what is being proposed, and evaluate it, and then comment during the relatively brief comment periods provided by CEQA. If you care about the impacts that development in Santa Cruz County might have on you, you should pay attention to a County government proposal to make so-called “minor exceptions” to current zoning site standards. A Negative Declaration is proposed under CEQA. Your opportunity to comment ends on January 19th. For KUSP, this is Gary Patton.
|
|
| Tuesday, January 4, 2011 More on “Minor Exceptions” |
|
Yesterday, I alerted listeners to a proposed revision of the Santa Cruz County Zoning Ordinance that will allow County staff to provide so-called “minor exceptions” from the zoning site standards that currently apply. This is a proposal that will be welcomed by landowners and developers, since it is intended to allow County staff to exempt applicants from the current County zoning rules, when the staff thinks that the exception is “minor.” If you happen to live in the neighborhood, or next door, you may not have the same evaluation as County staff. Currently, the rules are written down, and pretty clear, and if someone believes that a height limit, or a setback requirement, really shouldn’t apply to them, because of some sort of unusual condition, they are entitled to ask for a “variance,” which the County may grant after a public hearing. In other words, the rules are clear, and exceptions (minor and otherwise) are possible, but when exceptions are granted, they are granted through a public process, with a noticed public hearing being part of that process. Again, if you are a property owner or developer, you may not really like the “hassle” involved in this public hearing type approach. Naturally, you’d prefer simply to confer with the County staff, convince them that the zoning rules that are supposed to apply to everyone really shouldn’t be applied to you, and then have the staff make a decision in your favor without a full public hearing or any pesky “environmental review.” More on this tomorrow. For KUSP, this is Gary Patton.
|
|
| Wednesday, January 5, 2011 The Public And Permit Applicants |
|
Letting landowners and developers “do what they want” with their property can have major public impacts. Height limits, and setback requirements, and environmental regulations make a big difference to the neighbors and the neighborhood. We do need rules. Cities and counties make most of the rules that apply to land use. These land use regulations are supposed to achieve public purposes. The best system, in my view, is for land use regulations to be clear, and to set “bright line” limits on what is permissible and what is not. Then, those rules should be uniformly applied. Rules that grant the governmental agency broad “discretion” to do whatever it decides, in any specific instance, tends to result in decisions that depend a lot on “who’s asking?” The height limit for one person may be different from that imposed on a neighbor down the block. That kind of result is one of the dangers of the “minor exceptions” change now being proposed to the Santa Cruz County Zoning Ordinance. To me, it’s important always to remember that the “public” is not the same as the series of “applicants” who visit the permit counter. Making things nice for the applicants (always a good idea if you can do it) shouldn’t be accomplished by sacrificing the integrity of the regulatory system. Again, if you have interest in this issue, you will have until January 19th, to get your comments in. For KUSP, this is Gary Patton.
|
|
| Thursday, January 6, 2011 A Better Kind Of Permit System |
|
This morning let me recommend a free, 60-page “book” that you can download. It’s called Land Use And The General Plan. I have placed a link in the transcript of today’s Land Use Report. Published by LandWatch Monterey County, Land Use And The General Plan is subtitled a “Best Policies Guidebook.” One of the chapters specifically addresses “Permit Process Reform.” After outlining how the permit process typically works, the chapter says, “no reasonable person could blame anyone for being dissatisfied with this kind of a system.” The recommended “fix” for the permit process involves more, not less, opportunity for public participation. I would love to see some local government actually try to carry out this kind of “reform,” since I think the result would be an enhanced respect for the land use regulatory process on the part of both applicants and members of the public. Land use decisions must involve not only the “government” and the “applicant,” but the public at large. What many of us think of as “our” land (if we’re lucky enough to be landowners) is actually, in the words of Wood Guthrie, land that “belongs to you and me.” The entire public has a stake in the land use decisions made within the community. The permit system should recognize that fact. And then, it should make the process for reaching decisions clear, simple, and easily administered. For KUSP, this is Gary Patton.
|
|
| Friday, January 7, 2011 Affordable Housing Guidelines |
|
The “market” is an efficient way to provide for the allocation of scarce goods. Those who want something bargain with those who have it, and the price reflects what a willing seller and a willing buyer agree is “fair.” As between different persons wanting the same thing, the successful buyer is almost always the one who is willing to pay more. That is sometimes called the “Golden Rule.” He or she who has the gold makes the rules. A problem arises with respect to “necessities.” If everyone needs them, and the person who has the gold gets the goods, it’s possible that those with lower incomes and fewer assets will get nothing. This is really not acceptable if what we are talking about is truly “necessary.” Think health care. Think housing. In Santa Cruz County, persons and families with average and below average incomes simply cannot afford housing, which is a basic necessity of life. Santa Cruz County has tried to do something about this, by setting permanent price controls on a certain percentage of new housing produced in Santa Cruz County. The price set is what an average or below average income person can afford, and these units must be sold to such persons. If you want to read about the Santa Cruz County inclusionary housing system, check the transcript of today’s Land Use Report. And think about letting our new Governor know whether you think this ought to be a rule that applies everywhere in California. 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 |
|