Not everyone is familiar with that term “unincorporated,” or with the companion term “incorporated.” If land is “incorporated” that means it’s located within a “city.” “Unincorporated” means that it’s not in a city. In Santa Cruz County, if you live in Capitola, you live in a city, because there is a separately elected body, the Capitola City Council, which handles your municipal affairs. If you live in “Live Oak” (perhaps right across the street) you live in an “unincorporated” area, because there is no “Live Oak” city council. Live Oak is under the jurisdiction of the Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors.

Going back to Boronda, that area is unincorporated, and is under the jurisdiction of the Monterey County Board of Supervisors. The Board has delegated some significant advisory powers to local residents, and at the meeting tonight they will be exercising some of them.

For KUSP, this is Gary Patton.

More Information:

Since cities often have significantly different land use regulations from counties, it makes a big difference whether a piece of property is in an incorporated or unincorporated area.

The Boronda Redevelopment Citizens Advisory Committee will begin its April 12th meeting at 6:00 p.m., and will be considering a proposed Boronda 5-Year Implementation Plan. For more information, call the County Redevelopment Agency at 831-786-1350

There might be a couple of “Jeopardy” type responses if the Jeopardy word were “CEQA.” Environmentalists would say, “What is California’s premier environmental law, which makes it possible for ordinary citizens to have a significant impact on the land use and planning process?” Developers might have a different way of putting it, “What is the California law that most obstructs and delays the housing projects that can meet the housing needs of all Californians?” “CEQA” is the answer. That’s spelled C-E-Q-A, and the acronym stands for the “California Environmental Quality Act.” There is no more influential or powerful law affecting land use and development.

If you’d like to find out something about CEQA from the environmentalist perspective, I can recommend a new book, just released by the Planning and Conservation League. The book is titled, “Everyday Heroes Protect The Air We Breathe, The Water We Drink, and The Natural Areas We Prize – Thirty Five Years of the California Environmental Quality Act.” There’s more information on the KUSP website.

The publication of this set of CEQA “success stories” is timely, because Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger is proposing legislation radically to cut back the scope of CEQA. I’m sure I’ll have more to report as the Legislative session progresses.

For KUSP, this is Gary Patton.

More Information:

PCL Website
http://www.pcl.org

Everyday Heroes Publication
http://www.pcl.org/pcl/pcl_ceqa.asp

Governor Schwarzenegger and the Building Industry Association, which represents most of the large developers in California, have both been urging CEQA “reform” as one of their highest legislative priorities. Incidentally, it’s probably not a mere coincidence that the developers are among the very biggest of the Governor’s big political contributors. Let me also say that when I used the word “reform” there, I did put it in quotations. Weakening CEQA as a check on development has moved to the “front burner” in Sacramento. If you’re interested in helping to maintain the usefulness of the California Environmental Quality Act, contact Assembly Members John Laird and Simon Salinas, and State Senators Joe Simitian, Jeff Denham, and Abel Maldonado.

If you really want to see how bad it can get, however, and what can happen to strong and effective laws that help achieve good environmental outcomes (not to mention good outcomes in terms of the economy and social equity), then cast your eyes north to Oregon. Oregon has had a statewide land use system that is a national model, and it’s been very effective not only for the environment, but for the economy and social equity, too. This November, in a measure backed by development interests, the law has been savaged. If you’re interested, read up on initiative Measure 37. There are a couple of good references on the KUSP website.

For KUSP, this is Gary Patton.

More Information:

Thousand Friends of Oregon
http://www.friends.org/

Oregon’s Measure 37
http://www.friends.org/issues/m37.html

Assembly Member John Laird
http://democrats.assembly.ca.gov/members/a27/

Assembly Member Simon Salinas
http://democrats.assembly.ca.gov/members/a28/

State Senator Joe Simitian
http://democrats.sen.ca.gov/senator/simitian/

State Senator Jeff Denham
http://democrats.sen.ca.gov/senator/simitian/

State Senator Abel Maldonado
http://republican.sen.ca.gov/web/15/

Here’s a punchy headline that gets right to the essence of today’s Land Use Report: “Patton Tells Listeners – Take A Hike!” Well, only if you want to, of course!

I do, from time to time, try to make sure that KUSP listeners know that there is more to life than governmental meetings. Specifically, we Central Coast residents are all very privileged to live in one of the most beautiful places on Earth.

So, Earth to residents: “Why don’t you come out and see me sometime?”

On Saturday April 16th, Marina community leader Bruce Delgado will be leading a long and pretty difficult (but extremely rewarding) hike on the former Fort Ord. Bruce is well acquainted with the terrain, since he works for the Bureau of Land Management, which has the oversight and responsibility for something like 11,000 acres of the former Fort Ord. He is promising some pretty extraordinary wildflowers, and will be bringing along some folks with lots of knowledge about the Fort Ord back country.

The hike is expected to go from about 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 or 6:00 p.m., and will cover about ten miles. If you’d like to sign up, you need to RSVP to Bruce Delgado. His contact information is listed on the KUSP website. Just click on the Land Use Report link and track down the transcript for today’s report.

For KUSP, this is Gary Patton.

More Information:

You can reach Bruce Delgado at 831-384-1376 or 831-394-8314.

I got an email the other day from a County Commissioner in Blaine County, Idaho. This kind of came out of the blue, because I don’t know the Commissioner, and know nothing about Blaine County. Why was she was she contacting me? She was contacting me because she was doing a close reading of the “Community General Plan” for Monterey County, which she’d found on the internet, and thought that there might have been an error. And she was right! There was a typo!

I thought it was pretty amazing that this community-developed General Plan, drafted to meet the needs of Monterey County, was being considered for use by a County located in a whole different state.  On reflection, though, it really isn’t that surprising. The “Community General Plan,” which is also available to local residents on the internet, really is a “model” Plan. Not only is it worth review by the Board of County Commissioners in Blaine County, Idaho, our local Board of Supervisors might want to take a look at it!

The Salinas Valley and the Monterey Peninsula Chapters of the League of Women Voters have done an analysis that shows that the “Community General Plan” is consistent with the Leagues’ longstanding positions on land use policy. They closed their analysis by saying, “we urge that its major provisions be incorporated into the County General Plan Update.”

Hopefully, that will happen in Monterey County, California, and not just in Blaine County, Idaho!

For KUSP, this is Gary Patton.

More Information:

The “Community General Plan”
http://www.8of10monterey.com/pages/
community/gpu/communitygpu.html

The League of Women Voters Analysis
http://www.landwatch.org/pages/issuesactions/
countyplan/032605lwvletter.html

Blaine County Idaho
http://www.co.blaine.id.us/