|
|||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||
| |
|
|
|
||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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, August 17, 2009 – A Park Plan in Live Oak The Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors will hold a public hearing tomorrow, to consider plans for a proposed park on Chanticleer Avenue in the Live Oak Area. When I was young, parks were automatically considered to be a desirable neighborhood amenity. The idea of local neighbors opposing a proposed park would have been near to unthinkable. In the mid to late 1970’s, the opposite seemed to be true, and there was hardly ever a local park proposal that didn’t generate significant neighborhood opposition. Nowadays, local officials usually go out of their way to include local neighbors in park planning. That kind of public outreach has definitely taken place with respect to the proposed Chanticleer Park, and the public hearing tomorrow gives another chance for public comment. In the City of Santa Cruz, a parks-related controversy may be brewing, associated with a lack of public review. The City Parks Department staff has reportedly decided to turn the popular Ocean View Avenue Park into a “dogs run free” facility. Since that park has been specially designed for and is populated by young children, this seems like a decision that should require more public involvement. The proposed change could certainly generate controversy, not to mention possible City liability. Nonetheless, the City staff is apparently proposing to make that change without City Council review or any public hearing. For KUSP, this is Gary Patton. More Information Tuesday, August 18, 2009 – Lot Line Adjustment In San Luis Obispo County Both the Santa Cruz County and San Luis Obispo County Boards of Supervisors are meeting today, and whenever a Board meets you can bet that a land use related item or two is on the agenda. I was particularly interested to see that the San Luis Obispo County Board of Supervisors will be considering a proposed “lot line adjustment.” It’s my view that the most important land use decisions made by local governments are usually those that create new buildable parcels. Once a new parcel is created, the so-called “property rights” of the parcel owner generally result in the ultimate development of the parcel. Development, not the subdivision itself, is what causes environmental and other community impacts, and because those impacts come later, sometimes many years later, it’s not always clear what kind of effects a land division will cause. Supposedly, a “lot line adjustment” doesn’t create any new parcels; it just rearranges the boundaries of existing parcels. Theoretically, therefore, a “lot line adjustment” shouldn’t create any new impacts. In fact, though, when a lot line adjustment is approved, the result is often to create a new “buildable” parcel, and thus these decisions do have significant impacts. The item tomorrow would affect very remote lands near Nacimiento Lake, adjacent to the Monterey County line. Not a place where development should be encouraged. There is more information on the KUSP website. For KUSP, this is Gary Patton. More Information: Wednesday, August 19, 2009 – California Forward? A group called “California Forward” has now issued a set of recommendations for the proposed reform of California state government. State government reform is probably necessary in connection with, or as a prelude to, reform of state land use policy. The changes proposed by California Forward include:
The proposal would also allow cities, counties and school districts to raise funds for long-term purposes with just a majority approval from the voters. Currently, voter-approved Proposition 218 requires that local taxes funding specific items be approved by at least two-thirds of the voters. The California Forward group includes Santa Cruz County Treasurer Tax Collector Fred Keeley. The group hopes that the State Legislature will place the reform package on next year's ballot. If the Legislature won’t act, the group says it’s ready to launch an initiative petition campaign. You can get more information on the California Forward proposal in the transcript of today’s Land Use Report. For KUSP, this is Gary Patton. More Information: Thursday, August 20, 2009 – Protecting Mountain Resources A local land use activist recently sent me a clipping about new legislation in the State of North Carolina establishing a state Mountain Resources Commission. The North Carolina legislation included findings that "millions of tourists travel to the mountain region of Western North Carolina to see and experience the natural beauty of the mountains, including the vistas near national parks, national forests, state parks, and state forests. This tourism is vitally important to the economy of Western North Carolina,” yet this “same beauty and natural abundance … is being adversely affected by land-use practices that are negatively impacting the public's enjoyment of the[se] important mountain resources." As I read about this recent legislation, I couldn’t help but be reminded of the California Coastal Act. As enacted by the Legislature in 1976, the Coastal Act was motivated by the same kind of environmental and economic concerns that motivated the enactment of the North Carolina “Mountain Resources Planning Act.” Check out the findings in the Coastal Act, to see the parallels. Thinking about California’s contemporary land use challenges, it strikes me that North Carolina might have a lesson for us. The Sierra Nevada region is under the same kind of development pressure that has been impacting the mountains of Western North Carolina. Maybe it’s time to use the Coastal Act model for our own threatened Sierras. For KUSP, this is Gary Patton. More Information Friday, August 21, 2009 – Fire and Land Use The terrible Lockheed Fire in Santa Cruz County should cause us all to think about how land use policy might be reformed, to help prevent future wildfire threats. In a time of increasing global warming, those threats will only get worse. Land use policies that would prevent the future subdivision and development of lands in remote mountain areas could help prevent future tragedies. It’s the structures and the people who live in them who are most endangered by mountain wildfires. The mountains themselves, though not immune from impacts related to wildfires, are largely able to regenerate themselves. In fact, in many areas, wildfires are actually necessary for the environmental health of the region. Where residential and other developments are located within areas prone to wildfires, however, dangers to human life are multiplied. And, of course, the cost of fighting such wildfires is also multiplied. Existing lots are already “with us,” but the future subdivision of mountain areas where there is a high fire danger is a prescription for future disaster. The problem is not unique to Santa Cruz, Monterey, and San Luis Obispo counties, either. The Sierra Nevada are particularly threatened by the parcelization of steep mountain lands, and groups like the Sierra Nevada Alliance are trying to focus public attention on how land use policy can help avoid the grief and incredible costs associated with the destruction of residential areas by wildfires. For KUSP, this is Gary Patton. More Information |