|
|||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||
| |
|
|
|
||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Listen to the reports each weekday at 6:49 am & 8:49 am To
suggest a topic for a future land use report, or to convey a comment,
please use this link.
|
| Past
Reports
The following Land Use Reports have been presented on KUSP by Gary Patton, General Counsel of The Planning and Conservation League. The opinions expressed by Mr. Patton are not necessarily those of KUSP Monday, January 12, 2009 – The Coastal Voting Record Land use policies within the Coastal Zone must be consistent with the land use policies found in the State Coastal Act. To make sure this is true, each city and county with lands in the Coastal Zone must adopt a state certified “Local Coastal Program,” or “LCP.” Local government land use decisions are required to be consistent with this LCP, and if a local government approves a project that is inconsistent with the LCP (and thus with state Coastal Act policies), interested persons can often appeal the project to the State Coastal Commission. Our system to protect the coast, thus, ultimately depends upon the integrity and competence of the Coastal Commission. Presuming that you think that local governments should, in fact, follow these state coastal policies, you’ll want to know what kind of a job the Commission is doing. Several environmental groups, including the Sierra Club, the Surfrider Foundation, the League for Coastal Protection, and the California Coastkeeper Alliance, are trying to make it easy for interested members of the public to follow just how well the Commission is doing, in enforcing state coastal protection policies. As I mentioned last Friday, an annual “Conservation Voting Chart” is prepared by these groups, and the latest edition of this voting chart has some surprising information. There will be some more on that tomorrow! In the meantime, you can find a link to the California Coastal Commission Conservation Voting Chart on the KUSP website. For KUSP, this is Gary Patton. More Information California Coastal Commission Website – http://www.coastal.ca.gov/ You can get a PDF version of the 2007 California Coastal Commission Conservation Voting Chart (and to the voting charts for earlier years) by clicking on the appropriate link found in the left-hand side navigation bar on the “Great Coastal Places Campaign” website. Tuesday, January 13, 2009 – More On Coastal Protection Today, the Monterey County Board of Supervisors is meeting in Salinas. Among other items on the agenda is a proposed new system of code enforcement. I’ve often mentioned the “Code Rangers,” the citizen action group in Monterey County that has been working for more than five years to improve code enforcement efforts. Today, the Board is likely to give them a real victory. You can get a link to the Board’s agenda from the transcript of today’s Land Use Report. Today is also the first Board meeting for County Supervisor Jane Parker, who was elected to represent Monterey County’s Fourth Supervisorial District in June 2008. Supervisor Parker campaigned on the need to bring real change to Monterey County government, and now she is going to get the chance to try to make that happen. As I mentioned yesterday, the California Coastal Commission Conservation Voting Chart, published annually by a number of environmental groups, contains some surprising information. The big surprise is the voting record of Monterey County Supervisor Dave Potter. Supervisor Potter has been one of the most consistent pro-environment votes on the Monterey County Board, looking at his votes as a County Supervisor. That hasn’t, apparently, carried over to his votes on the Coastal Commission, at least not according to the groups that have published the Coastal Commission Conservation Voting Chart. I’ll give some more specifics tomorrow. For KUSP, this is Gary Patton. More Information Monterey County Board of Supervisors Agenda - http://monterey.granicus.com/ViewPublisher.php?view_id=5 You can get a PDF version of the 2007 California Coastal Commission Conservation Voting Chart (and to the voting charts for earlier years) by clicking on the appropriate link found in the left-hand side navigation bar on the “Great Coastal Places Campaign” website. Wednesday, January 14, 2009 – More On The Coastal Commission A Coastal Commission Voting Chart is published each year by a number of environmental groups. The voting chart documents how well, or how poorly, the Coastal Commission has been doing in insisting on the full implementation of state coastal protection policies by local governments. The latest chart documents the 2007 calendar year. For that year, the voting chart gives the Commission a 44% pro conservation voting score, overall, which isn’t exactly inspiring. It’s not the lowest score ever, but it’s far from the highest, either. The voting chart also rates each member of the Commission individually. For local government officials, the most pro conservation score was given to Sonoma County Supervisor Mike Reilly, at 57%. San Luis Obispo County Supervisor Katchik Achadjian claimed the lowest pro-conservation score. His score was 11%. Since his coastal score is fully consistent with his voting record on the Board of Supervisors, it’s not really a surprise. What is somewhat surprising is the score given to Monterey County Supervisor Dave Potter, who is generally considered to be a pro-conservation vote on the Monterey County Board of Supervisors. Supervisor Potter got the second lowest pro-conservation score on the entire Coastal Commission, at 13%. You can get a link to the voting chart on the KUSP website. For KUSP, this is Gary Patton. More Information: California Coastal Commission Website – http://www.coastal.ca.gov/ You can get a PDF version of the 2007 California Coastal Commission Conservation Voting Chart (and to the voting charts for earlier years) by clicking on the appropriate link found in the left-hand side navigation bar on the “Great Coastal Places Campaign” website. Thursday, January 15, 2009 – How Coastal Appointments Are Made Public Resources Code Section 30301 specifies the membership of the Coastal Commission. The Public Resources Code is easily available online, and I’ve provided a link in the transcript of today’s Land Use Report. The Governor, the Speaker of the Assembly, and the President pro Tem of the Senate all make appointments to the Commission. Who appoints whom is quite specifically spelled out. The Speaker of the Assembly, for instance, is required to “select one member from the central coast region and one member from the San Diego coast region.” The central coast region includes the counties of San Mateo, Santa Cruz, and Monterey. San Luis Obispo County is not in the central coast region, as the Coastal Act defines that term; it’s in the south central coast region. Appointments to represent the south central coast region are made by the Governor. Section 30301.2 outlines the procedural steps that must be taken for the Governor, the Speaker, and the President pro Tem to make appointments. They do not have full discretion. In large part, they must act upon nominations made by local government officials from within the region for which they’re making the appointment. The Speaker of the Assembly, Karen Bass, is now due to make an appointment for the Central Coast region, including Santa Cruz and Monterey Counties. If you’d like to be involved in the process, now is the time to start speaking to your local elected officials and to Assembly Member Bill Monning. For KUSP, this is Gary Patton. More Information Coastal Commission Website – http://www.coastal.ca.gov/ You can get a PDF version of the 2007 California Coastal Commission Conservation Voting Chart (and to the voting charts for earlier years) by clicking on the appropriate link found in the left-hand side navigation bar on the “Great Coastal Places Campaign” website. Friday, January 16, 2009 – “Take Our Survey” State law requires each city and county General Plan to include both a “circulation” element and a “land use” element. State law also requires that these two elements be “internally consistent.” You can’t plan for lots of growth without planning for adequate transportation facilities to serve that growth. You also can’t legally plan for major new roads that aren’t needed from the point of view of what you say your future land uses will be. Putting major new freeways through land designated for farming doesn’t really compute, and this would be an “internal inconsistency” that state law says is not allowed. Responsibility for land use planning is given to local governments, while responsibility for transportation planning is given to agencies that operate at a “regional” level. In Santa Cruz County, for example, the four cities and the county government do land use planning, but the Regional Transportation Commission, as overseen by the Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments, handles transportation planning. In order to keep listeners up to date on key land use policy matters, the Land Use Report often mentions what the regional transportation agencies are doing. If you’re from Santa Cruz County, and want to be informed about transportation policy, be aware that the Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation Commission wants you to “take our survey,” so they can get information to you in a way that’s most helpful. There is more information on the KUSP website. For KUSP, this is Gary Patton. More Information The Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation Commission Website - http://www.sccrtc.org/ |