The following Land Use Reports have been presented on KUSP by Gary Patton, Executive Director of The Planning and Conservation League. The opinions expressed by Mr. Patton are not necessarily those of KUSP
Radio, nor of any of its sponsors.

Note: The Land Use Report utilizes links provided by other entities and cannot guarantee that they will remain available by those hosting organizations. For broken links, please search via the website of the organization mentioned.

Monday, January 7, 2008 – The Monterey County Planning Commission

State law requires each city and county to establish a “planning agency.” Most jurisdictions comply by forming a “Planning Commission,” generally comprised of members of the public selected by the governing body. In Santa Cruz County, the Board of Supervisors has named a five-person Planning Commission. Appointments are based on nominations made by each individual Supervisor. This means, as a practical matter, that the Planning Commission will generally make exactly the same decision that the Board itself would make, since each member of the Planning Commission is directly responsible to an individual Supervisor. That has certain advantages, in that applicants know they need to present their strongest case to the Commission; they are under no illusions that the Board will easily overturn a Planning Commission decision. 

The Monterey County Planning Commission is constituted differently. It has ten members, appointed by the Board as a whole, and it’s not clear to applicants that the Board will ordinarily uphold a Commission decision. In fact, it’s quite usual for the Commission to recommend one thing, and for the Board, which is the ultimate authority, to do something else. 

If you’d like to see the Monterey County Planning Commission in action, think about attending its next meeting, scheduled at 9:00 a.m. on Wednesday. Among other things, the Commission will take up the 2007 General Plan Update review process. An extensive public outreach effort is going to be placed in motion, which means that the General Plan debate is not yet over! 

For KUSP, this is Gary Patton. 

More Information
State Planning and Zoning law - http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate?WAISdocID=55932820258+9+0+0&WAISaction=retrieve
Monterey County Planning Commission Agenda - http://www.co.monterey.ca.us/planning/cca/pc/2008/pc01-09-08a.htm  


Tuesday, January 8, 2008 – Plumbing Fixtures in SLO County

The San Luis Obispo County Board of Supervisors meets today, and a number of items relating to land use are on the agenda. Let me highlight one in particular. Consent Agenda Item B-2 requests the Board to set a public hearing on January 15th, to consider a so-called “Green Building” ordinance that would require the retrofitting of plumbing fixtures in connection with additions, remodels, and new development in special water conservation areas. These areas include the Los Osos Groundwater Basin and the Nipomo Mesa Water Conservation Area. I’ve provided a link to more information in the transcript to today’s Land Use Report.  

Even after a pretty heavy storm event, it’s clear that water supply issues are of key importance to the California Central Coast. One of the best “supply” options out there is water use efficiency, which means using what we already have with less waste. Many of our most difficult problems could be solved if we would just be more efficient in the use of resources we already have. We figured this out in the energy arena way back in the mid-1970’s. Instead of building new nuclear power plants (which were then being called for by the utility companies), California embarked on a program of energy conservation, which has really paid off We need to do the same thing where water is concerned, and why not really think courageously, and try that “efficiency” approach on the use of our existing highway and transportation infrastructure? 

For KUSP, this is Gary Patton. 

More Information
San Luis Obispo County Website - http://www.slocounty.ca.gov/site4.aspx
Agenda, January 8th Meeting - http://slocounty.granicus.com/AgendaViewer.php?view_id=2&event_id=31
Staff Report on Green Building Ordinance - http://slocounty.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=2&event_id=31&meta_id=80688  


Wednesday, January 9, 2008 – The Santa Cruz County LAFCO Meets Today

I like to encourage folks to get acquainted with the most important land use agency they’ve probably never heard of: LAFCO for short. The acronym stands for “Local Agency Formation Commission,” and every county has one. LAFCO is supposed to be our first line of defense against urban sprawl, which does indicate that improvements are probably needed. LAFCO in Santa Cruz County has done a pretty good job of containing sprawl and preserving farmland, which is the statewide mission of LAFCO. In other counties, though, LAFCOs have not been so successful. You’ll perhaps remember that the Monterey County LAFCO voted, late last year, to allow the City of Greenfield, located in the middle of the best farmland in the world, virtually to double in size, turning that productive farmland into more commuter suburbs and shopping centers. LAFCOs in the Central Valley have a comparable record of achievement. 

Despite the failure of certain LAFCOs to carry out their state mandate to stop sprawl, it’s important that the state has set up a system that tries to impose some discipline on the kind of development that has such negative environmental impacts, and that often leads to fiscal problems for cities, counties, and other local government agencies. 

Click on the Land Use Report icon on the KUSP website to find out more about LAFCO. And consider heading down to the Santa Cruz County Governmental Center at 9:30 this morning, if you’d like to see one of these important agencies in action.

For KUSP, this is Gary Patton. 

More Information
Information on LAFCOs (CALAFCO Website) – http://www.calafco.org/
Santa Cruz County LAFCO Website – http://www.santacruzlafco.org/
Agenda, Santa Cruz County LAFCO - http://www.santacruzlafco.org/pages/agendas.html  


Thursday, January 10, 2008 – Land Use and Discipline

“Discipline” is a good, old-fashioned word. If I were to guess, I’d bet that while there might be some concern that “discipline” could be over-zealous, most people probably think that an appropriate level of “discipline” is a good idea. I’d also guess that the first kind of association that a person might have with the word “discipline” would be something along the lines of parental “discipline.” Maybe it’s not so good to have a father beat his children with a belt, to enforce the family rules (which are hopefully reasonable ones), but I bet most folks do think that when children “act out” it’s good for there to be some consequences, and that some kind of measured “discipline” should be applied. 

After twenty years as a local government official, my primary association with the word “discipline” is no longer the “family” kind of discipline, but the kind that has to do with well-administered governmental regulations. Again, while regulations can be over-zealous, trying to set up community based (and community enforced) policies that can help guide us, as a community, to the kind of result that we’d like to see does seem to have a broad appeal. That’s the kind of “discipline” that I think makes sense in the land use arena, and it’s really my metaphor for what a good set of land use policies should be like.  

We need to set up reasonable “family rules” for our communities, which will help us achieve the overall community good, and then discipline ourselves to follow them, and demand that individuals do the same. 

For KUSP, this is Gary Patton. 

More Information
The definition of “discipline” - http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/discipline  
“Discipline” doesn’t mean only the “training” (which might even include “punishment”) that is intended to mold us correctly. It means the pattern of behavior that leads us to where we want to go.  


Friday, January 11, 2008 – Speaking of Discipline … SB 375

If our development decisions were truly “disciplined,” then sprawling patterns of development wouldn’t be allowed. We simply wouldn’t permit such undisciplined and counterproductive developments to go forward. As we all know, the reality is a bit different. Our support for “discipline” in general doesn’t mean that we always act in a well-disciplined manner. Paving over farmland for new subdivisions and shopping centers, despite our many state and local rules that say we want to protect productive farmlands, is a great example of a lack of land use discipline. 

Senate Bill 375, pending in the State Legislature, is a way to try to bring some discipline to the road building process. Highway expansion and highway extensions are a huge cause of bad environmental and social impacts, which not only include the loss of farmland, but also increased air and water pollution, the community breakdown associated with long distance commutes, and the emission of greenhouse gases. SB 375 would tie “funding” for roads to adherence to a stronger set of policies about undisciplined growth. The idea is that if we’re disciplined about our use of money, we won’t spend money to do things we know are contrary to what we say we want. I suggest you “subscribe” to SB 375, if you’re interested in this topic. You can find out how at www.kusp.org. 

For KUSP, this is Gary Patton. 

More Information
Senate Bill 375 - http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/postquery?bill_number=sb_375&sess=CUR&house=B&author=steinberg  
If you “subscribe” to a bill, the LegInfo system will send you an email when changes are made, and when hearings are set, and when votes are taken. There is a “subscribe” button at the bottom of the webpage. The same system works for any piece of legislation that might be of interest to you.