Posted by: Kim_Hamilton on 09/07/2008 08:19 PM
Updated by: Kim_Hamilton on 09/07/2008 08:19 PM
Expires: 01/01/2013 12:00 AM
:
Letter to Calaveras County Board of Supervisors "General Plan Update"~By Al Segalla
"Dear Calaveras County Board of Supervisors: The Calaveras County Taxpayers Association directors have reviewed Mintner and Associates Draft Working Vision Statement and Guiding Principles and General Plan Public Review Draft Issues and Opportunities Report in detail. CCTA questions, comments and recommendations are included in the attached three pages. Our concerns are that, as presented, the updated General Plan will unfairly restrict.....
reasonable and constitutional use of private property by owners, will be difficult to administer and will impede economic development.
We respectfully request that the County Supervisors and staff carefully consider the attached documents and re-direct Mintner and Associates accordingly.
Sincerely,
Albert J. Segalla, President
Attached:
Review of Vision Statement
Review of Key Policy Questions
Summary
REVIEW OF VISION STATEMENT AND GUIDING PRINCIPLES
CCTA believes that the submitted General Plan Update proposals are excessive, overreaching and in some respects unconstitutional. The GPU scope should be reduced to address only land use matters with the sole objective of meeting the CEQA and other state statutes' extensive requirements without infringing upon citizens' constitutional right to reasonably use their property. For example, the draft addresses government fees, funding and promotion of small business, education, and tourism, none of which directly relate to land use.
On first glance, the document appears to be a statement of lofty goals and noble purpose. But what does it really mean? Since we are concerned about the expansion of government control and potential for abuse of property rights, we pose these ten questions:
1. Are the “Guiding Principles” really principles or subtle and deliberate obfuscations? The first guiding principle should be, “the GPU update shall adhere to and uphold the Constitution of the United States of America”.
2. Does the protection of “open space, wildlife habitat, scenic vistas, agricultural lands, forests, rivers and lakes” mean that the owners of those assets will no longer have control of their property? Are ranchers and landowners obligated to provide and preserve scenic vistas, public recreation, et al, without compensation?
3. Does having building boundaries limiting construction to existing communities mean that no lots large enough to keep a horse or llama will be allowed? Is this smart growth?
4. Regarding Senate Bill 32, Global Warming Solutions Act: A substantial number of scientists are questioning the validity of the carbon theory, which this law is based on. What if property rights are compromised in the name of catastrophic global warming and then the theory is discredited?
5. How can land use restrictions promote tourism? Is it even worth the attempt?
6. Are developers not now limited to availability of infrastructure or is the General Plan meant to be a no-growth plan?
7. What is the need for riparian controls in the general plan? Are water rights and riparian protection not adequately addressed by other jurisdictions and existing statutes?
8. How will the GP resolve the issues of fire protection and logging? Are logging regulations and wildfire protection not the province of the state?
9. How are education and health care deemed land use issues? Why are they included in the list?
10. Why is government service included in the list? How does it relate to land use decisions?
REVIEW OF KEY POLICY QUESTIONS
• What is the appropriate minimum parcel size in rural areas that will discourage sprawl and protect open space and working landscapes?
CCTA: Minimum parcel size should be determined by reasonable use of the land, not for imprecise and questionable political ends.
• How can Calaveras County support infill development that offers a small-town, rural atmosphere and lifestyle in existing community centers?
CCTA: Infill may destroy the desirability of existing neighborhoods by increasing crowding, traffic congestion and parking shortages. It also threatens historic features of the gold rush communities. Infill should not be a priority in Calaveras County.
• How can the County protect and preserve historic centers?
CCTA: Private interests preserve historic buildings and sites as a matter of economic self interest. County planning is not needed to preserve history.
• How can the GP provide sufficient local control over planning decisions?
CCTA: The General plan should be written as a performance document that clearly and succinctly specifies the minimum requirements for building or development and leaves the specific details to owners or developers, thus minimizing need for control.
• How should County retain distinct community identities while stimulating growth and reinvestment in the communities?
CCTA: First, “community identity” is an imprecise and subjective term. Laws, ordinances and regulations must have clear, well defined objectives to be generally understood and fairly enforced. Secondly, relaxed regulation will best stimulate growth and investment.
• How should the County best provide unique community gathering places and recreation areas?
CCTA: It should encourage communities, non-profit organizations, developers and entrepreneurs to provide parks, playgrounds, open areas and meeting halls.
• How can the County work with farmers, ranchers, non-profit organizations and other partners to preserve agricultural land?
CCTA: The County can continue to encourage agricultural enterprises such as hunting clubs, riding academies, ranch hostels, etc.
• Should the County consider a Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) program to protect open space?
CCTA: As long as land is more valuable in agriculture, it will not be developed. Development should be based on economics, not politics. Also, a TDR program would be wasteful, tempt abuse and fraud and would diminish property rights.
SUMMARY
CCTA believes that the submitted General Plan Update proposals are excessive and overreaching and should be reduced to address only land use matters with the sole objective of meeting the CEQA and other state statutes’ extensive requirements. For example, the draft addresses government fees, funding and promotion of small business, education, and tourism, none of which directly relate to land use.
Furthermore, we believe the new general plan and ensuing zoning ordinance should be simple, more concise and user friendly. It should be written in plain English using only common words with precise meaning and should adhere to the US and California constitutions.
|
