 |
Home | Issues & Actions | About |
Archive Page This page is available as an archive to previous versions of LandWatch websites. |
KUSP LandWatch
News
Week of March 17, 2008 to March 21, 2008
Week of March 17, 2008 to March 21, 2008
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 March 17, 2008 to March 21, 2008
- Monday, March 17, 2008
Santa Cruz County – A Big Day Tomorrow
- Tuesday, March 18, 2008
Neighborhood Compatibility
- Wednesday, March 19, 2008
A Lawsuit Settlement on Diablo Canyon
- Thursday, March 20, 2008
Watering Down Affordable Requirements
- Friday, March 21, 2008
The Ducheny Coastal Bill
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, March 17, 2008 Santa Cruz County – A Big Day Tomorrow |
 |
|
It’s a big day tomorrow at the Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors for those who follow land use and community development issues. Track down the transcript for today’s Land Use Report for information about all of the following:
Land use decisions made by local government have a profound impact on the environment, economy, and social equity. Simply learning more about land use issues is, in itself, an important part of being a fully engaged citizen. Even better, of course, is becoming personally involved in the debate and discussion about land use. That debate is part and parcel of the political process that determines the kind of future we will have. If we elect people, to hire people, to run our lives for us, we shouldn’t be surprised if they don’t do what we want. Self-government means we need to get involved “ourselves.” So, if you’ve ever been tempted to learn a little bit more about land use, check out the agenda for tomorrow’s meeting of the Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors, and consider attending! For KUSP, this is Gary Patton.
|
|
| Tuesday, March 18, 2008 Neighborhood Compatibility |
|
Today’s meeting of the Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors is jammed with important items relating to land use. Reading through the Board’s agenda materials will give you a good feel for the way that land use policy matters are handled (at least in Santa Cruz County). Let me highlight a couple of the items that the Board will confront today. One of them, a report on “Neighborhood Compatibility,” is Item #41 on the Consent Agenda. Unless a Board member or member of the public requests that this item be removed for discussion, the report will simply be “accepted and filed.” What the report reveals is that the County staff is implementing some zoning code changes that allow for more lot coverage in urban areas, in return for height reductions. The Pleasure Point area remains a problem, since providing for “neighborhood compatibility” there may require more discretionary permit review. A further report to the Board can be expected later in the summer. Agenda Item #67, which is a full public hearing, scheduled for 1:30 this afternoon, is described as being about “small-scale residential structures.” It can also be thought of as a “neighborhood compatibility” item, but this time relating in a very significant way to rural areas. The question is whether the County should reduce discretionary permit review of new residential structures in rural areas. The Sierra Club and others think that this could have bad effects in our watersheds. I hope you’ll get involved. For KUSP, this is Gary Patton.
|
|
| Wednesday, March 19, 2008 A Lawsuit Settlement on Diablo Canyon |
|
A group called “CLEAN,” the Coastal Law Enforcement Action Network, has recently announced a settlement of its lawsuit challenging the California Coastal Commission’s approval of new steam generators at the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, located in San Luis Obispo County. The settlement will permit PG&E to install the steam generators, but will require the company to undertake several significant programs to benefit the environment, and to help efforts to curb global warming. The local programs that will now be funded by PG&E include the conversion of the Montaña de Oro State Park’s Spooner Ranch House Visitor’s Center to an entirely solar operation, kicking off a statewide program to convert all State Park power operations to solar, and the development of an Osprey and Bald Eagle nesting reintroduction program at Montaña de Oro State Park. A “Lost Fishing Gear Recovery Project” will also be implemented, to clean up the marine environment by recovering lost fishing gear from the near shore waters in the vicinity of Diablo Canyon. CLEAN’s lawsuit was against the Coastal Commission, as well as against PG&E, and the Commission has promised, in a separate agreement, to establish and implement a comprehensive training program for current and future Coastal Commissioners, regarding the “ex parte communication” requirements of the Coastal Act. Litigation, in other words, sometimes can help address environmental problems! For KUSP, this is Gary Patton.
|
|
| Thursday, March 20, 2008 Watering Down Affordable Requirements |
|
The Monterey County Housing Advisory Committee has just voted against affordable housing. And in the case of Monterey County jurisdictions, that isn’t anything very unusual. As other cities and counties around the state have increasingly been adopting strong “inclusionary” housing ordinances, to require developers to provide affordable housing as a part of new development, both the City of Salinas and Monterey County have distinguished themselves by weakening their already existing ordinances, to provide increased benefits to developers. The most recent action came at the request of the politically connected Woodman Development Company, which asked to remove the long-term affordability restrictions on an almost completed housing project, and to remove any buyer qualifications based on income. The project in question, located just north of Salinas, was approved in 2006 by the Board of Supervisors, and was hailed as a model for building more affordable housing. The developer who made the original promises was Don Chapin, another politically connected personage, but he then promptly sold his affordable housing obligation to Woodman. Woodman was obviously planning to make money on the affordable project, and the slump in the housing market has put that in question. In a choice between protecting developer profits and preserving affordable housing opportunities, the Housing Advisory Committee went with the developer. Final action will be by the Board of Supervisors. For KUSP, this is Gary Patton.
|
|
| Friday, March 21, 2008 The Ducheny Coastal Bill |
|
Senate Bill 1295, authored by San Diego State Senator Denise Ducheny, would severely cut back the ability of the California Coastal Commission to review and supervise local government decisions affecting the coast. Probably, the public impression is that all developments on the coast must get Coastal Commission approval before they can go ahead. The truth is quite different. By and large, the Commission exercises its responsibility to protect the coast by reviewing the provisions of the Local Coastal Programs (or LCPs) proposed by local governments, and making sure that those LCPs meet Coastal Act requirements. Once a Local Coastal Program is approved, the local government implements it, not the Commission. In order to make sure that local governments are, in fact, doing what they promised to do in their Local Coastal Program, the Coastal Commission is able to review a very small number of local government decisions through an “appeal” process that can be initiated by any two members of the Coastal Commission. About 5% of proposed projects are susceptible to appeal, and appeals are made in only about 2% of the cases. These are, as you can imagine, the most important cases. The Ducheny bill would basically eliminate the Commission’s ability to carry out such an appeal, and thus to protect the coast against local governments that aren’t following their own LCPs. There is 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 |
|