 |
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 17, 2011 to January 21, 2011
Week of January 17, 2011 to January 21, 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 17, 2011 to January 21, 2011
- Monday, January 17, 2011
Fees And Due Process In Monterey County
- Tuesday, January 18, 2011
The PVWMA Board Meets Tomorrow
- Wednesday, January 19, 2011
Salinas Public Involvement
- Thursday, January 20, 2011
Redevelopment And The State
- Friday, January 21, 2011
General Plan Guidelines – Complete Streets
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 17, 2011 Fees And Due Process In Monterey County |
 |
On January 11th, the Monterey County Board of Supervisors confronted a real problem: what, if anything, should be done to make it less costly for public interest groups to appeal a land use decision to the Planning Commission or the Board of Supervisors? Monterey County Supervisor Jane Parker brought this issue forward for discussion, and while the Board took no definitive action on January 11th, it’s likely that the appeals fee issue will be back before the Board soon. Apparently, if you want to appeal a land use decision in Monterey County, you must first post a $5,000 “fee for services.” Presumably, if you appeal first to the Planning Commission, and then later to the Board of Supervisors, you would have to be able to produce $10,000 simply for the privilege of having your appeal heard. As a practical matter, this means that ordinary members of the public, and even public interest groups, are not actually able to appeal decisions that they think are wrong, or that may violate state or local law. And please note this, if you don’t appeal (for whatever reason), you can’t later go to court. Land use decisions can have major community impacts, and of course major impacts on individuals within the community. Query whether the public is really being given “due process of law” if it costs $10,000 to appeal a planning decision to the Board of Supervisors. There is definitely a problem here. Check the transcript of today’s Land Use Report for some more detail. For KUSP, this is Gary Patton.
|
|
| Tuesday, January 18, 2011 The PVWMA Board Meets Tomorrow |
|
Tomorrow, at 7:00 p.m., the Board of Directors of the Pajaro Valley Water Management Agency (or PVWMA) will be meeting in the Watsonville City Council Chambers. There are a number of stimulating items on the agenda, and I encourage your attendance. One of the things that is illustrated, particularly, by the agenda for tomorrow’s meeting, is the interrelationship between various different government agencies that work in the land use arena. The PVWMA is a “special district,” created pursuant to special provisions of state law. As a special district, the PVWMA is entitled to vote for a “Special District Representative” to the Board of Directors of the Local Agency Formation Commission, or LAFCO. LAFCO is itself a government agency established under state law, and it plays a very important role in issues that directly affect special districts, including determining the areas in which they may provide service. Tomorrow night, two LAFCO-related items are on the PVWMA agenda. First, which candidate for the LAFCO Special District position would the PVWMA Board of Directors prefer? Second, what comments, if any, will the PVWMA want to submit on the proposed “Water Policies” that will be considered by LAFCO at its meeting on February 2nd. As usual, you can get a link to more information in the transcript of today’s Land Use Report. For KUSP, this is Gary Patton.
|
|
| Wednesday, January 19, 2011 Salinas Public Involvement |
|
Since we are not just a collection of individual persons, but have common problems and opportunities, we need some effective mechanism to confront these problems and opportunities together. Our local government agencies, whether they be special districts, or county governments, or city governments, provide us an opportunity to work together to chart a future that responds to our community needs. Land use policy and project decisions, made by local government agencies, are central to this effort to make self-government work for us. Finding out what is already going on with respect to land use; figuring out what you think ought to be going on; and then doing something about it by way of your personal involvement, can literally change your world. You’ve heard this before, if you are a frequent listener to the Land Use Report, but I do think it bears repeating. If you are a Salinas resident, City Council Member Steve McShane will be holding two public involvement meetings in the next couple of weeks that will give you an opportunity to learn, and to speak out. Council Member McShane’s next meeting will be from 6:00 to 7:30 p.m., Monday, January 31st, at the Roosevelt Elementary School, located at 120 Capitol Street in Salinas. On Wednesday, February 2nd, the Council Member will meet constituents from 6:00 to 7:30 p.m., at Saint Paul's Church, 1071 Pajaro Street. For KUSP, this is Gary Patton.
|
|
| Thursday, January 20, 2011 Redevelopment And The State |
|
“Redevelopment” has a pretty good sound to it, at least for most of us. The word seems to promise that we can find a way to take areas in our communities that are run down, unattractive, and economically unproductive, and then transform them into vital and attractive places. And indeed, you can see this process at work around the state, including in unincorporated portions of Santa Cruz County like Live Oak and Soquel. Over the last twenty years or so, the Santa Cruz County Redevelopment Agency has made parks spring up where none existed before; it has provided sidewalks and road improvements, and has directly assisted both affordable housing and economic development efforts. First District Santa Cruz County Supervisor John Leopold is now playing a leadership role, and would like the Redevelopment Agency to become even more proactive. There’s a fly in the ointment, however, which is this: local redevelopment (at least seen on a statewide basis) often takes money that would otherwise go to schools and other local government efforts, and puts them into projects that really represent a significant subsidy to developers, and the community benefit of which is not necessarily all that central. Governor Brown has proposed eliminating new redevelopment projects within the state. If you’re not paying attention to this issue, I’d like to suggest that you start doing so. There is a link to an informative article from the Los Angeles Times in the transcript of today’s Land Use Report. For KUSP, this is Gary Patton.
|
|
| Friday, January 21, 2011 General Plan Guidelines – Complete Streets |
|
The Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (often called OPR) has recently updated the State’s General Plan Guidelines. The recent amendments reflect legislative changes made in 2008 by AB 1358, The California Complete Streets Act. AB 1358 added the following language to the California Government Code: Commencing January 1, 2011, upon any substantial revision of the circulation element, the legislative body shall modify the circulation element to plan for a balanced, multimodal transportation network that meets the needs of all users of the streets, roads, and highways for safe and convenient travel in a manner that is suitable to the rural, suburban, or urban context of the general plan. The Complete Streets Act required OPR to amend the General Plan Guidelines to help local jurisdictions figure out how to comply with this new statutory requirement. The result is that the State’s General Plan Guidelines now contain a section specifically focused on “Complete Streets and the Circulation Element.” This document is worth reading. Transportation policies have an important impact on the shape and character of our local communities, and the new legislation requires a new (and less auto-centered) approach. There is a link to the new Guidelines in the transcript of today’s Land Use Report. 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 |
|