KUSP LandWatch News
Week of December 15, 2008 to December 19, 2008

Tomorrow, the Board of Supervisors of San Luis Obispo County will consider the Santa Margarita Ranch project, a so-called “agricultural cluster subdivision” affecting over 3,700 acres of agricultural land. The continued public hearing appears as Agenda Item #C-8 on the Board’s agenda. You can find a link in the transcript of today’s Land Use Report.

San Luis Obispo County residents who think either that the proposed subdivision is a good idea, or that it is an ill-advised plan that will perpetuate the worst kind of “dumb growth,” should plan to attend the Board meeting tomorrow. Furthermore, the Santa Margarita Ranch developers have scheduled a public meeting this evening.

In calling the meeting this evening, the developers apparently want to make sure that they are complying with a guideline set forth in July, when the Santa Margarita Area Advisory Council endorsed one of several project proposals by a 9-3 vote. The Advisory Council said that the applicant should “negotiate” with the community of Santa Margarita to establish community benefits that could offset the negative impacts that the development will cause. How much “negotiation” can occur at a meeting held less than twenty-four hours before the Board of Supervisors’ final vote remains to be seen, but as I said about these meetings last week, if you care, be there!

For KUSP, this is Gary Patton.

More Information

December 16, 2008 Agenda, San Luis Obispo County Board of Supervisors
http://slocounty.granicus.com/
AgendaViewer.php?view_id=2&event_id=31

News Story From San Luis Obispo Tribune
http://www.sanluisobispo.com/news/
local/story/550790.html

The Monterey County Board of Supervisors will be convening at 8:30 this morning, and it appears that this early start is intended to give Board Members more time behind closed doors, to discuss litigation and other items outside the public view. The public portion of the meeting is scheduled to start at 10:30.

There is a ceremonial aspect to today’s meeting, as the Board will be bidding farewell to Fourth District Supervisor Ila Mettee-McCutchon. Supervisor McCutchon was appointed to fill out the term of deceased County Supervisor Jerry Smith, and has represented the cities of Seaside and Marina, and part of Salinas. She ran for election in her own right, but was defeated last June by Jane Parker. Supervisor Parker will take office in January.

There are a number of critically important land use items on the agenda, so activists should be out in force, and I’d like to highlight Agenda Item #S-6. This item is to reintroduce, waive first reading, and set for adoption on Tuesday, January 13th, an ordinance establishing new procedures to govern the imposition, enforcement, collection, and administrative review of administrative fines or penalties for violations of the Monterey County Code.

You may remember the “Code Rangers,” the citizens who have been pushing for better code enforcement in Monterey County. On January 13th, they may finally be able to claim some success.

For KUSP, this is Gary Patton.

More Information

December 16l, 2008 Agenda, Monterey County Board of Supervisors
http://monterey.granicus.com/
ViewPublisher.php?view_id=5

Rural subdivisions change the world! Now, whether they change the world in a good way is another question. The “smart growth” movement attempts to discourage rural subdivisions, while providing a stimulus to development located within existing urban areas.

In Santa Cruz County, “smart growth” is the county’s officially adopted land use policy. Measure J, adopted by the voters in 1978, says the following:

It shall be the policy of Santa Cruz County that prime agricultural lands and lands which are economically productive when used for agriculture shall be preserved for agricultural use.

It shall be the policy of Santa Cruz County to preserve a distinction between areas in the County which are “urban,” and areas which are “rural.” Divisions of land in rural areas shall be discouraged, and new residential developments shall be encouraged to locate in urban areas.

You can get a link to the full text of Measure J in the transcript of today’s Land Use Report, as well as an article published by People For Open Space, shortly after Measure J was implemented.

Despite the best efforts of LandWatch Monterey County, and community activists in Monterey County, Monterey County does not, currently, adhere to a “smart growth” approach. The lovely River Road area, for example, definitely an agricultural area, is once again being considered for residential subdivision. You can get information on that proposal in today’s transcript, too!

For KUSP, this is Gary Patton.

More Information:

Smart Growth America Website
http://www.smartgrowthamerica.org/

LandWatch Monterey County Website
http://www.landwatch.org

Measure J (Chapter 17.01 Santa Cruz County Code)
http://ordlink.com/codes/santacruzco/index.htm

Measure J (Prior to Codification) and the “Story of Measure J” (Publications portion of LandWatch website)
http://www.landwatch.org/pages/publications.htm

Salinas Californian News Article on proposed River Road Development
http://thecalifornian.com/article/20081211/
NEWS01/812110316/1002

Once in a while, I get a question or suggestion from a Land Use Report listener, and I certainly invite you to send me your thoughts and comments. You can use the built-in email link found on the KUSP website page that displays transcripts of the Land Use Report in “print format.”

Recently, I got a comment from a Monterey County listener who has family living in the Central Valley, where air quality problems are pandemic. Speaking of “pandemics,” which is defined as something (often a disease outbreak) “occurring over a wide geographic area and affecting an exceptionally high proportion of the population,” the “pandemic” definition fits when we talk about young children in the San Joaquin Valley, huge numbers of whom are now afflicted with asthma!

The listener who contacted me wanted me to mention the ISR rule now in effect in the Central Valley, pointing out that this rule demonstrates how an air quality district can do something positive about land use. “ISR” means “Indirect Source Rule,” which treats new developments as “indirect” sources of air pollution. If land developments are considered in this way, then they are subject to regulation by air quality districts, and air quality rules can thus help mitigate the impacts of new development. The “ISR” approach is also a technique that could help reduce greenhouse gas emissions. You can find out more by tracking down the transcript of today’s Land Use Report.

For KUSP, this is Gary Patton.

More Information

Make a comment or provide a suggestion
http://www.kusp.org/landuse/

The ISR Rule (the activist perspective)
http://www.fresnometmin.org/airquality/
ISR_article_CommunityAlliance_Jan2006.pdf

The ISR Rule (the developer perspective)
http://www.mccormickbarstow.com/showarticle.aspx?Show=179

Definition of “pandemic” from the Merriam Webster Dictionary online
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pandemic

Central Valley Air Quality Coalition (CVAQ)
http://www.calcleanair.org/

Fresno Metro Ministry Air Quality Page
http://fresnometmin.org/airquality/

An important concept we need to remember when we think about land use decisions is the concept of “cumulative impacts.” The California Environmental Quality Act, or CEQA, specifically requires governmental agencies to think about cumulative impacts as they evaluate the possible environmental impacts of their proposed actions.

We often focus simply on the immediate issue at hand, as we think about things, which is why it’s easy to overlook cumulative impacts. Suppose a small rural subdivision comes before a Board of Supervisors. The issue at hand is whether or not to permit a property owner (often a very nice person, incidentally) to divide his or her ten-acre property into several smaller parcels (say four parcels or fewer, which means that this proposed land division would officially be defined as a “minor land division”). If the Board looks only at the specific proposal before it, it may indeed seem a “minor” matter. Creating the four new parcels won’t fundamentally change the character of the area, so there is no problem, right? Well, let’s consider the land division from the “equal protection” perspective. If the Board were to treat all persons in the area with similar parcels in an exactly similar manner (which does seem to be basically fair), then the changes that would occur would not be “minor” at all. In fact, letting all the owners of ten acre parcels divide them into 2.5 acre parcels can transform a rural, agricultural area into the worst type of sprawl.

For KUSP, this is Gary Patton.

More Information

CEQA Website
http://ceres.ca.gov/ceqa/