 |
Home | Issues & Actions | About |
Archive Page This page is available as an archive to previous versions of LandWatch websites. |
KUSP LandWatch
News
Week of December 17, 2007 to December 21, 2007
Week of December 17, 2007 to December 21, 2007
KUSP provided a brief Land Use Report on KUSP Radio from January 2003 to May 2016. Archives of past transcripts are available here.
Week of December 17, 2007 to December 21, 2007
- Monday, December 17, 2007
Congratulations To A Couple of Supervisors
- Tuesday, December 18, 2007
Monterey County Board Agenda
- Wednesday, December 19, 2007
Tomorrow At The SCCRTC
- Thursday, December 20, 2007
CEQA and the Citizenry
- Friday, December 21, 2007
Global Warming and CEQA
The following Land Use Reports have been presented on KUSP Radio by Gary A. Patton. The Wittwer & Parkin law firm is located in Santa Cruz, California, and practices environmental and governmental law. As part of its practice, the law firm files litigation and takes other action on behalf of its clients, which are typically private individuals, governmental agencies, environmental organizations, or community groups. Whenever the Land Use Report comments on an issue with which the Wittwer & Parkin law firm is involved on behalf of a client, Mr. Patton will make this relationship clear, as part of his commentary. Mr. Patton’s comments do not represent the views of Wittwer & Parkin, LLP, KUSP Radio, nor of any of its sponsors.
| Monday, December 17, 2007 Congratulations To A Couple of Supervisors |
 |
|
On November 6th, the Monterey County Board of Supervisors took preliminary action on a "compromise" General Plan Update document, and gave staff what it called its "final direction." The key thing for the Board has always been to decide what balance to strike between the different worldviews of those who have been most active in the General Plan debate. One group of advocates, sponsor of a "Community General Plan," has asked the Board to focus future development in areas already committed to urban growth, saving agricultural and open space lands. The other side of the debate has urged the right of property owners to develop much more freely. Up until November 6th, the Board had never really resolved the debate, though it did at one point adopt a pro-development plan, that was later rejected by the voters in a referendum. November 6th was a "compromise" decision, and the Board’s "final direction." It was strange then, to have the County staff put an item on the agenda last week, at the very last minute, and with no specific recommendations that members of the public could know about in advance. At the meeting, it became clear that the recommended changes were all pro-development policy modifications, and that Supervisors Armenta and Salinas were the proponents. Supervisors Calcagno and Potter refused to undo the compromise forged on November 6th, and to shut the public out of the process." Congratulations to those two Supervisors! For KUSP, this is Gary Patton.
|
|
| Tuesday, December 18, 2007 Monterey County Board Agenda |
|
|
On Tuesday last week, I suggested that Monterey County residents high tail it down to the Board of Supervisors’ meeting, because it appeared that something funny was about to happen to the "final direction" that the Board had previously given on its General Plan Update. A lot of people did show up at the meeting last Tuesday, and it appears that they may have made a difference in the outcome. By a 2-2 vote, the Board refused to make pro-development changes in the "compromise" General Plan directions that the Board had previously agreed to on November 6th. The "final direction" given to County staff still stands (thanks to Supervisors Potter and Calcagno, who refused to go along with a pre-orchestrated, last minute switcheroo on the public, proposed by Supervisors Salinas and Armenta, the two most pro-development advocates on the Board, and abetted by County staff). I’m not suggesting that you head down to the Board chambers this morning. Mostly, the Board is going to be doing its business in one of its continuing "closed sessions," from which the public is excluded. The Board is seeking a way to resolve litigation generated by the General Plan Update process in the past, and by the Rancho San Juan development project in particular. I do advise that you keep your eyes open on the General Plan Update process. The "final direction" given to county staff on November 6th (and representing a compromise) will not become a "final decision" until sometime next year. For KUSP, this is Gary Patton.
|
|
| Wednesday, December 19, 2007 Tomorrow At The SCCRTC |
|
Tomorrow, the Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation Commission will be meeting at 1523 Pacific Avenue in downtown Santa Cruz. You can get more information on the KUSP website. The Commission plays an important role in determining land use policy in Santa Cruz County, since land use and transportation policy simply must be considered together, if either one of them is going to make very much sense. To my mind, one of the most interesting items on tomorrow’s agenda is the Commission’s consideration of Senate Bill 375. The Commission staff apparently believes that passage of SB 375 in its current form might make it impossible to widen Highway One. Getting the public to fund this gigantic highway expansion project is the number one priority of the Commission (if not the public). Information on SB 375 is also found on the KUSP website. This bill, if enacted, and not watered down, both of which are highly problematic, would require regional transportation agencies to adopt plans that would result in meeting greenhouse gas reduction targets set by the State Air Resources Board. Probably, that’s the feature that concerns the Commission’s staff, since it’s pretty clear that further highway expansion will pump lots more carbon dioxide into the air, as the Artic ice melts and the walruses and the polar bears die. Not to mention the impacts on the rest of us! For KUSP, this is Gary Patton.
|
|
| Thursday, December 20, 2007 CEQA and the Citizenry |
|
The California Environmental Quality Act, or CEQA, is probably the strongest general-purpose environmental protection law in the nation. CEQA requires both state and local governmental agencies to undertake a rigorous "environmental review" of any governmental project that may have a significant negative impact on the environment. Note the use of the word "may." CEQA applies if a there is a "fair argument" that a project might have a significant environmental impact. If there is a possibility of a significant impact, then CEQA requires a rigorous examination of what the impacts might be, and also requires that any identified impacts be eliminated or mitigated if that’s feasible. By its own terms, CEQA applies to "governmental" projects, and originally, many supposed that this meant just a project directly carried out by government. Not so, said the California Supreme Court. Any action by a government (including the issuance of a permit that allows private activities to proceed) requires CEQA review. CEQA is no "silver bullet" for stopping developments that the public doesn’t like. Ultimately, elected officials rule the roost. CEQA means, though, that things can’t be "sneaked through," and that the public has real power. Those who want to be active and effective on land use policy matters simply must understand and utilize the California Environmental Quality Act. You can find out how below. For KUSP, this is Gary Patton.
|
|
| Friday, December 21, 2007 Global Warming and CEQA |
|
|
The California Environmental Quality Act, or CEQA, isn’t limited to any specific subject area. CEQA applies to any governmental activity that might have a negative impact on any part of the natural environment. The courts have broadly construed CEQA to cover just about any possible environmental impact, and this specifically includes glob al warming. AB 32, the state’s pioneering law adopted last year, requires the Air Resources Board to establish and implement a set of regulations that will roll back greenhouse gas emissions in California to 1990 levels by the year 2020. It’s a "single-purpose" statute, and if implementation is not thwarted it will fundamentally change our lives. The regulations called for by AB 32, however, won’t take effect until about 2012. So what are we doing now? Every time we approve a new development, we make it harder to achieve the rollback goals specified by AB 32. In effect, we’re digging the hole deeper every day, and the "first rule of holes," if you want to get out of the hole, is to "stop digging." CEQA actually requires that local, regional, and state government agencies start changing their behavior now, to cut back global warming emissions, whenever that’s feasible. Attorney General Jerry Brown is leading the charge to make that actually happen in fact. There’s more information below. For KUSP, this is Gary Patton.
|
|
Archives of past transcripts are available here
|
CONTACT 306 Capitol Street #101 PO Box 1876 Phone (831) 759-2824 Fax (831) 759-2825 |
|