|
|||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||
| |
|
|
|
||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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, who was a member of the Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors from 1975 to 1995. Mr. Patton now practices environmental law in Santa Cruz with the Wittwer & Parkin law firm. The opinions expressed by Mr. Patton are not necessarily those of KUSP Radio, nor of any of its sponsors. I regularly tell listeners to get involved with land use decisions at the local level. Let me renew that admonition right now. If you click on the Land Use Report Icon on the KUSP website, and track down the transcript for today’s Land Use Report, you’ll find various land use links that can help you get the information you need to become knowledgeable and effective on land use, transportation, water policy, and other governmental actions relating to land use. Even as I remind you, however, that local government agencies play a key role in determining land use policy, I want to turn your attention to some of the important provisions of state law that actually set up the system within which local governments operate. Not everyone spends a lot of time thinking about governmental structure (I must confess that I’m a person who does do that), but when you do that, it becomes clear that the most basic level of government is neither the “local” level (which is, admittedly, closest to the people) or the “federal” level (which does, admittedly, handle the largest and perhaps most ultimately significant issues, including issues of war and peace). The most “basic” level of government is the “state” level. The “United States” was formed as a federation of “state” governments, and despite all the talk about “local control,” local governmental agencies are created by, and can be modified by, and can be extinguished by, the State. For KUSP, this is Gary Patton. More Information Land Use Links Gary Patton presents a weekday “Land Use Report” on KUSP Radio. Here are some important links to sites often mentioned on the Land Use Report. All these links were “good” at the time this memo was prepared. If you find a “bad” or “broken” link, please let Gary Patton know at land@kusp.org. Local Government Websites Santa Cruz County County Website – http://www.co.santa-cruz.ca.us/ City of Capitola - http://www.ci.capitola.ca.us/ Santa Cruz County Local Agency Formation Commission - http://www.santacruzlafco.org/ Monterey County County Website – http://www.co.monterey.ca.us/ City of Carmel-by-the-Sea - http://ci.carmel.ca.us/carmel/index.cfm Monterey County Local Agency Formation Commission - http://www.co.monterey.ca.us/lafco/ San Luis Obispo County County Website – http://www.slocounty.ca.gov/site4.aspx City of Arroyo Grande – http://www.arroyogrande.org/ San Luis Obispo County Local Agency Formation Commission - http://www.slolafco.com/ Nonprofit and Environmental Groups Santa Cruz County Sierra Club, Ventana Chapter: Santa Cruz Group - http://ventana.sierraclub.org/current/index.shtml Monterey County LandWatch Monterey County – www.landwatch.org San Luis Obispo County LandWatch San Luis Obispo County - http://landwatchsloco.org/ State Laws and State Organizations CEQA Statute and Guidelines – http://www.pclfoundation.org/publications/ceqaresources.html Planning and Conservation League – www.pcl.org Tuesday, December 1, 2009 – Pay A Visit To The Government Code To understand how local government land use policies are established pay a visit to the California Government Code, beginning at Section 65000. That section is the first section of the State Planning and Zoning Law. The sections that immediately follow contain a pot pourri of miscellaneous provisions, and some definitions. It’s hard to discern the “system” if you just start reading. I recommend that you look first at the Table of Contents of the Government Code, starting with Government Code Section 65000. If you do that, you can uncover a basic structure under all the many, almost mind‑numbing provisions contained in the Code. At Government Code Section 65100, you will start finding provisions relating to “Local Planning.” That section says, “There is in each city and county a planning agency with the powers necessary to carry out the purposes [specified in the State Planning and Zoning Law]. The legislative body of each city and county shall … assign the functions of the planning agency to a planning department, one or more planning commissions, administrative bodies or hearing officers, the legislative body itself, or any combination thereof, as it deems appropriate and necessary.” It’s the State, in other words, in a “top down” directive, that demands that city and county governments do land use planning. Tomorrow, I’ll outline some of the details specified in Sate law. For KUSP, this is Gary Patton. More Information: Wednesday, December 2, 2009 – How About That General Plan? The state government demands that each city and county carry out specific directives contained in the State Planning and Zoning Law. The State does give cities and counties a great deal of latitude on how to set up their planning operations, but no city or county can escape the requirement that they establish a planning system that meets state law demands. “Local control,” in other words, doesn’t mean that city and county governments can decide not to plan. Government Code Section 65300 specifies that each city and county must have a “General Plan,” and Government Code Section 65302 requires that these city and county General Plans cover the following seven topics, which are called the “Elements” of the General Plan: (1) a Land Use Element; (2) a Circulation Element; (3) a Housing Element; (4) a Conservation Element; (5) an Open-Space Element; (6) a Noise Element; and (7) a Safety Element. These General Plan Elements are all required, but a city or county can add additional General Plan Elements if they would like. Where “local control” comes in is in the substantive contents of each General Plan Element. A “Conservation Element” is required, for instance, but there is no state law requirement that special or unique areas actually be conserved. As an example, you might think that the State would require that commercially viable agricultural land be preserved, but there is no state law requirement to “conserve” even that valuable resource. For KUSP, this is Gary Patton. More Information Thursday, December 3, 2009 – Sustainability, Anyone? Let’s talk “sustainability.” According to their October newsletter, the Ecological Farming Association, or Eco‑Farm, is sponsoring a Sustainable Agriculture Pest Management Conference in San Luis Obispo tomorrow and Saturday. If you are interested, I suggest contacting Eco‑Farm directly. You might also mark your calendar for the 30th Annual Eco‑Farm Conference, scheduled for next January 20th to 23rd, in Pacific Grove. The California Climate and Agriculture Network, CalCAN for short, is a coalition that advances policy solutions at the nexus between climate change and sustainable agriculture. CalCAN recently held a Climate and Agriculture Summit at UC Davis. You can review presentations and videos from this event at the CalCAN website. I’ve included a link in the transcript of today’s Land Use Report. Finally, here’s one more item with a “sustainability” theme. On Monday, December 7th, a Sustainable Silicon Valley Water Summit is taking place at the NASA/Ames Research Center in Mountain View. The organizers hope to catalyze a major change in approach to long-term water supply and water management in the Silicon Valley. Anyone starting to get concerned about those issues on the Santa Cruz County side of the hill (and everyone of us should be included in that category) might pick up some pointers. For KUSP, this is Gary Patton. More Information Friday, December 4, 2009 – New Rules For Pleasure Point Next Wednesday, the Santa Cruz County Planning Commission will review proposed planning rules for Pleasure Point intended to preserve the character of this unique part of Live Oak. An article in the Santa Cruz Sentinel last Saturday spotlighted what’s at stake. A local architect said that special building rules are needed for Pleasure Point, but he was worried that the proposed new rules might have “unintended consequences.” "One problem is demanding large second-floor setbacks," he said, explaining that setbacks could prompt property owners to build deeper into their lots, and that the result could be housing that is “long and skinny,” and that will “really … mess up the backyard." A geology consultant was quoted as making a much more dramatic claim. He was against any governmental rule that had the effect of making aesthetic decisions for property owners. According to this gentleman, "whether property owners want to make it look like a box store or a tepee, that's their choice." To the contrary, and I’m not intending to be too confrontational, property owners do not, legally or constitutionally, have a “right” to do whatever they want to do with their property. When a property owner needs to get permission to build something that means that it is legitimate for the community to have a say about what gets built. What the community says is open for discussion, but the right of the community to set up rules that affect individuals is what it means to have a community, and a government. For KUSP, this is Gary Patton. More Information |