This is a good time to think about wildland fire protection in the context of land use policy. State Senator Christine Kehoe, from San Diego, has definitely focused in on fire and land use, and is carrying a bill to make sure that development decisions don’t ignore fire dangers.

Her bill, Senate Bill 1500, is scheduled to be heard in the Assembly Natural Resources Committee later today. You can get more information below.

SB 1500 would change state law in four different ways: First, it would require counties to alert the State Board of Forestry and Fire Protection whenever an application is made for a new subdivision in a wildland area where the state has responsibility for fire protection. After review, the State Board could decide to remove state fire protection responsibility, which would tend to discourage building in such high hazard areas.

Second, the bill would require a more thorough analysis under the California Environmental Quality Act, or CEQA. Third, the bill would prohibit long term “development agreements” in areas of high fire hazard. Finally, Senate Bill 1500 would require very specific findings for subdivision approval, for lands located in fire hazard areas.

This fire season has certainly shown the dangers of developments in high hazard zones. If enacted, Senate Bill 1500 should help.

For KUSP, this is Gary Patton.

More Information

Senate Bill 1500 (Kehoe)
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/07-08/bill/
sen/sb_1451-1500/sb_1500_bill_20080527
_amended_sen_v96.pdf

Bill Status
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/07-08/bill/sen/
sb_1451-1500/sb_1500_bill_20080612_status.html

The San Luis Obispo County Airport Land Use Commission will be meeting tomorrow. Local listeners might want to check out this meeting. The Commission will be considering whether or not to find the Orcutt Area Plan of the City of San Luis Obispo consistent with the Airport Land Use Plan. If the Airport Land Use Commission decides that the City’s Orcutt Area Plan is not consistent with the Airport Land Use Plan, then the City of San Luis Obispo will have to amend the City’s Plan. Where airport-related land use issues are concerned, the Airport Land Use Commission can trump the City.

The inconsistency between the City’s Plan and the Airport Land Use Plan has apparently occurred because the City’s Plan indicates that a new school site will be located in an overflight area that the Airport Land Use Commission thinks is unsafe. Ironically, what the City and the Commission think about the proposed school site is, essentially, irrelevant. School districts don’t have to comply with local planning. The school district, in other words, trumps both these land use agencies.

School siting issues aside, Airport Land Use Commissions can sometimes play a powerful role in land use planning issues. This has been made clear with respect to the City of Watsonville’s plan to build in the Buena Vista area. You can get more information about the powers and duties of these rather unusual land use agencies below.

For KUSP, this is Gary Patton.

More Information

Public Utilities Code sections relating to the responsibilities of the Airport Land Use Commission
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?
section=puc&group=21001-22000&
file=21670-21679.5

State law references to the powers and duties of a county Airport Land Use Commission
http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/planning/
aeronaut/htmlfile/landuse.php

Brief informative statement about the San Luis Obispo County Airport Land Use Commission
http://sloairport.com/
airport_land_use_commission.html

You can sign up for alerts about land use and environmental issues in San Luis Obispo County on the website maintained by Environment in the Public Interest. The EPI Center website is:
http://www.epicenteronline.org/

Land use and transportation policies are inextricably linked, and it seems that large-scale changes, from global warming to higher gasoline prices, are starting to have an impact. Last weekend, I read that higher gasoline prices were shifting buying patterns, and that customers are forsaking big trucks for more economical sedans. I also saw a prediction that gasoline prices will probably stabilize at about $8.00 per gallon. If that’s true, we’re going to have to find new ways to get around that don’t rely so heavily on the single occupant automobile. Efforts to widen Highway One may not have quite the same cachet, even for those who now equate mobility with road widening.

I’m happy to say that the City of Santa Cruz seems to be somewhat in front of the curve. Finding ways to make bike riding more acceptable and attractive are definitely part of a longer-range solution to our transportation challenges. Tonight, the City is holding an important meeting to discuss a Draft King Street Bikeway proposal, and you’re invited! The meeting starts at 7:00 p.m., and will be held in the Police Department Community Room at 155 Center Street in Santa Cruz.

Three options for King Street will be discussed. You can get more information below. People Power, the bicycle advocacy group, is supporting two of the proposals, and opposing one of them. If you’d like to weigh in, don’t miss the meeting tonight.

For KUSP, this is Gary Patton.

More Information

A copy of the King Street Bikeway Concept Plan can be downloaded from the City of Santa Cruz website
http://www.ci.santa-cruz.ca.us/.

If you can‚t attend the meeting, but would like to make a comment on the Plan, please send an email to the bicycle/pedestrian coordinator, Cheryl Schmitt at:cschmitt@ci.santa-cruz.ca.us, with a copy to the Santa Cruz City Council at: citycouncil@ci.santa-cruz.ca.us.

If you’d like to help People Power in their efforts to build support for a King Street Bikeway, please contact Rick Longinotti at 831-454-9325 or Lisa Hochstein at 831-426-7338.

As I noted in passing on Tuesday, school districts don’t have to abide by city and county planning policies. That seems surprising, but it’s true. The City or County General Plan acts as the “Constitution for Land Use” for private parties who might want to develop their property, but school districts get a free ride. Cities and counties also have to follow the provisions found in their own General Plans, but again, school districts are exempt. Our land use policies are set up to allow school districts to buy the cheapest land they can find (usually out in some agricultural or non-urban area), with the idea being that overall planning isn’t the priority. Of course, this policy preference leads to school locations that make “walking to school” an outmoded concept.

There is another result of exempting schools from local land use and planning requirements. Schools can act as “pioneers” for developments that might not be approved on their own merits. Once a school has been located out beyond current development, it starts to make sense to allow the shopping centers and subdivisions to follow behind.

Something like this is occurring in the Coyote Valley, in the City of San Jose. A large landowner and developer has sold land cheaply to the Gavilan Community College District, and the District appears poised to build a new campus right in the middle of nowhere, and in a major wildlife corridor besides. If that happens, the developer won’t be far behind!

For KUSP, this is Gary Patton.

More Information

Gavilan Community College District website
http://www.gavilan.edu/

Information on proposed Coyote Valley Campus
http://www.gavilan.edu/bond/documents/
CoyoteCampusDEIR.pdf

We teach young students that we live in a society that respects law and order, and that “laws, not men,” set the standards for behavior. Wouldn’t it be nice if that were true!

In Monterey County, where land use is concerned, examples keep popping up of how the laws are ignored, or even changed on occasion, to benefit politically well-connected landowners or developers. Within the last six months, the Board of Supervisors voted to change the rules on an affordable housing development, to remove the affordable housing restrictions that had been placed on the development when it was approved, and that were used to justify the development. Two well-connected developers were the beneficiaries of the change. Lower income, working families in Monterey County were the ones whose interests were sacrificed.

Another example of this phenomenon in Monterey County has just come to light (this time in the context of non-enforcement of a permit condition). The County’s willingness to sign off on a development that should have provided a new water supply for fire emergencies, without the developer actually doing that, has arguably placed several hundred homeowners in jeopardy during a time when wildfire dangers are extreme. Too bad, I guess, if their houses burn down. I feel certain that the developer was happy not to have had to follow through on the permit requirement.

I’ve put a link to a news story about this matter in the transcript of today’s Land Use Report. It’s a pretty shocking story.

For KUSP, this is Gary Patton.

More Information

The “Case of the Missing Water Tanks,” an article from the June 18, 2008 Monterey County Herald
http://www.montereyherald.com/local/
ci_9621059?nclick_check=1