The Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors is back in session after their summer recess during July. You can get a link to the agenda for tomorrow’s meeting in the blog entry for today’s Land Use Report. The Land Use Report blog always provides both a transcript and links to related materials. It’s located at kusp.org/landuse.

A couple of items on tomorrow’s agenda are worth comment. First, I want to give you a “heads up” on a public hearing item scheduled for later in August. That’s Agenda Item #50. You should mark the date of August 21st on your calendar, if you have any interest in the future of Aptos Village. On August 21st, the Board will be considering an application by Barry Swenson Builder to develop a mixed use, residential and commercial project, right in the heart of Aptos Village. Sixty-three residential units and 75,000 square feet of new commercial space are being proposed, along with the closure and abandonment of an existing roadway.

Agenda Item #68 is an appeal by Cove Britton. Mr. Britton is a local architect, and he contends that the County has gone beyond its legal authority in trying to regulate the placement of hot tubs on the edge of coastal bluffs. As you might imagine, the County’s Planning Director doesn’t see it that way, and recommends the denial of Mr. Britton’s appeal. You can get the details in today’s transcript.

More Information:

• Gary Patton’s Two Worlds Blog
• August 7, 2012 Agenda of the Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors
  • Aptos Village Item – Agenda Item #50
  • Hot Tub Appeal Item – Agenda Item #68

The Pacific Grove City Council will be holding a special meeting tomorrow evening. I’ve put a link to the agenda in the transcript of today’s Land Use Report. The meeting starts at 6:00 p.m., and the big item on the agenda is Agenda Item #13, a public hearing that will focus on a proposal for what the developer is calling the “Holman Hotel.” If ultimately approved, the hotel would be located on the block bounded by Lighthouse Avenue, Grand Avenue, Central Avenue, and Fountain Avenue. That is an entire city block, right in the heart of Pacific Grove.

The agenda indicates that there are two possible decisions that the Council could make tomorrow: First, the Council could decide to proceed with an election on November 6th, to let the voters determine whether or not to amend the C-1-T Zone, to permit the construction of the hotel, as proposed by the developer. Second, the Council could determine that additional time is required adequately to develop project related information, to address expressed concerns, and to inform the public. In that case, there would not be an election on November 6th, but there would be more public hearings, and probably the establishment of a Blue Ribbon committee to look at issues like size, water availability, off-site parking, and how to use the new revenues that the proposed hotel would generate.

I’ve put links to more information in today’s transcript. If you care about the future of Pacific Grove, you should be there tomorrow!

More Information:

• Gary Patton’s Two Worlds Blog
• August 8, 2012 Agenda, Pacific Grove City Council
• Agenda Report on Holman Hotel (Agenda Item #13)

As a former environmental lobbyist, based in Sacramento, I continue to read the Sacramento Bee newspaper, online. I pay particular attention to news about legislative and other actions that might have an impact on the environment, and on the state’s land use laws and regulations.

A recent article in the Bee, discussing the California Environmental Quality Act, or CEQA, definitely caught my attention. Governor Jerry Brown was quoted as saying, “I’ve never seen a CEQA exemption that I don’t like.” The article went on to report: “Less than two years into office, Brown has signed three bills limiting the ability to challenge projects under the act, and he is openly supportive of at least one more. Meanwhile, Brown’s top political adviser … is quietly advising a group of business leaders on ways to modify the law.”

According to the Bee, one-time environmentalist Jerry Brown is now undermining the state’s strongest environmental law, and he has become a booster of mammoth development projects, including facilities that would be able to divert almost the entire flow of the Sacramento River around the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, to benefit corporate farmers on the west side of the Central Valley.

If you care about protecting and preserving the California environment, you need to start paying attention to what our Governor is doing. Nothing can happen without support from locally elected legislators, so think about getting in touch with your representatives.

More Information:

• Gary Patton’s Two Worlds Blog
• Sacramento Bee Article on Governor’s Position on CEQA
• CEQA – The Statute and Related Materials
• Planning and Conservation League (PCL) Website     

Today, I am providing a quick course on “vested rights.” An interesting article about vested rights is referenced in today’s transcript. Consult that for a more extensive discussion.

Probably, the term “vested rights” is somewhat familiar to you. In the land use arena, developers and property owners are always seeking ways to establish their “vested rights.” What “vested rights” mean is that the public can no longer change its mind about a particular development, and that the developer has a legally enforceable right to construct a particular project.

The reason that “vested rights” are such a big deal for developers is that the basic rule is that the public can change its mind, even after a project has been officially approved, and tell a developer that the formerly approved project is no longer approved. The bias is in favor of the public having a right to change its mind, up until the point that a developer has demonstrated that it is relying on the public’s approval by obtaining a building permit and actually beginning construction. The key concept is that the public retains its ability to decide what land uses are most appropriate, up until actual construction begins, which is when “vested rights” are established.

This rule is tough on developers. If you read the article I’ve referenced, you’ll see that there are some ways that developers can “contract” with public agencies, to get “vested rights” without actually beginning construction.

More Information:

• Gary Patton’s Two Worlds Blog
• Contracting For Vested Rights

If the public changes its mind about a land use approval, and vested rights exist, then a property owner or developer may sue the public agency concerned, and say that the public has “taken” its property. If “vested rights” exist, the property owner or developer will win.

But here’s the basic rule about “takings.” Absent vested rights, an unconstitutional “taking” of private property by way of a land use regulation only occurs if the public decision deprives the property owner of all economically feasible uses of its property. If the developer wants to build 100 new homes, and the zoning says that’s OK, but then the public changes the zoning, and says that the particular land can only be used for five new homes, that will probably not be a “taking,” absent “vested rights.” While the property owner won’t make as much money with five homes as with 100, there is still an economically feasible use of the property.

Property owners can always “ask” for what they want, and maybe the public will “give approval” for what the property owner asks. However, you don’t have a constitutional right to any particular approval. The Constitution says that “taking” all economic uses from a property owner requires payment of just compensation. But there is no constitutional protection for “givings.” Permissions given can be taken away, if the public changes its mind.

More Information:

• Gary Patton’s Two Worlds Blog
• LandWatch Pamphlet on “Takings” Law