It can be expected that a number of Carmel Valley residents will be making the trek to Salinas this afternoon. They will be attending the 4:00 o’clock meeting of the Monterey County Local Agency Formation Commission. LAFCO is what this agency is usually called, and every county has one. Today, the Monterey County LAFCO will be considering, among other things, the possible reorganization of the Carmel Valley Fire Protection District.

Not too many years ago, a “consolidation” was carried out, supervised by LAFCO, creating the current Carmel Valley Fire Protection District. There is a “trend” towards consolidation of smaller agencies, to help reduce taxpayer costs, and in many cases to improve public service. This is true not only for fire protection districts, but for other special districts as well. The Local Agency Formation Commission oversees this process.

The “consolidation” that has resulted in the current configuration of the Carmel Valley Fire Protection District has not completely “taken” with the residents and voters of the District. At its last meeting, in fact, reacting to a petition and spirited public testimony, LAFCO voted to detach areas from the District, thus reversing the consolidation. Today, LAFCO is going to “reconsider” that decision. Once debate on the Fire Protection District is concluded (and there will be a debate), the Commission will discuss efforts to create a new town in Carmel Valley.

For KUSP, this is Gary Patton.

More Information

LAFCO Agenda
http://www.co.monterey.ca.us/lafco/agenda.htm

Frequent listeners will remember (and how could they forget!) that Monterey County has been in the process of amending its 1982 General Plan for the past six years. The Board of Supervisors has spent upwards of $5 million dollars in this effort (and probably more like $6 million dollars at this point). Last year, after getting a “third draft” General Plan Update from the Planning Commission, the Board of Supervisors voted to reject five years’ worth of work, and to “start over.” This decision responded to development interests, who have opposed all the new draft plans, since they have been founded on a set of Twelve Guiding Objectives that would prevent the inappropriate development of rural and agricultural land. The County staff now indicates that there won’t be a new General Plan Update for the Board to consider until sometime next year.

In the meantime, the lack of an updated General Plan has not stopped the Board from approving developments. Quite the contrary! A suspicious mind might conclude that the delays are actually designed to allow developers to get approval for projects that would never be allowed under the Twelve Guiding Objectives. Tomorrow, an item on the Planning Commission agenda provides a case in point. The proposal is to convert South County agricultural grazing lands into 319 residential lots. This is popularly known as “rural sprawl.”

If you’re interested, there is more information at www.kusp.org.

For KUSP, this is Gary Patton.

More Information:

Planning Commission Agenda for July 27, 2005
http://www.co.monterey.ca.us/pbi/cca/pc05.htm

Planning Commission Staff Report
http://www.co.monterey.ca.us/pbi/cca/pc/2005/07-27-05/SRPCa_PLN020016%207-27-05.pdf

Mark your calendars for Tuesday, August 16th. On that day, the Monterey County Board of Supervisors will consider whether or not to allow the voters of Monterey County to vote on the largest development proposal in the County’s history. I’m talking about “Rancho San Juan,” or “Rancho San Wrong,” as its critics call it.

Last year, despite a unanimous Planning Commission recommendation to turn down Rancho San Juan, the Board of Supervisors approved it. They did so under a demand from the developer that they act immediately. No delay was acceptable to the developer. After the Board’s approval, during the holidays, concerned residents then gathered 16,000 signatures on a referendum petition, to require the Board either to rescind the approval, or to put the development to a popular vote. The Board set the matter for a vote of the people at the upcoming November election. This seems consistent with what we think of as “democracy,” letting the voters have a chance to overturn a decision they may think is wrong.

On August 16th, the Board will decide whether, in fact, to let the voters have their say, or to do what the developer now demands, which is to avoid a public vote. The developer now asks that his project be denied, making the referendum irrelevant, so the Board can then approve a slightly different project a few months later. Anything to cut the voters out of the process. If you’re a voter in Monterey County, you might like to let the Board know what you think.

For KUSP, this is Gary Patton.

More Information:

County’s Rancho San Juan Website
http://www.co.monterey.ca.us/pbi/major/rsj/rsj_main.htm

LandWatch Comment Letters
http://www.landwatch.org/pages/issuesactions/northcounty.html

The Monterey County Board of Supervisors has now “started over” with its General Plan Update process. It ended its deliberations last week with an in-depth review of the “definitions” proposed for inclusion in the updated General Plan.

Representatives of developers were reported to have opposed using the word “encourage.” They thought that county staffers would interpret the word “encourage” to mean “require.” That’s an odd position for a developer to take, since a policy that “encourages” something is as unrestrictive as a policy statement can be. In fact, a policy that is based on the word “encourage” isn’t really a “policy” at all. In legal terms, a Board of Supervisors or the Planning Commission can do whatever it wants to with respect to an issue, if the relevant policy is phrased as an “encouragement.”

To be legally enforceable, a policy must be written as a “requirement,” using words like “shall” and “will.” Otherwise, there aren’t any teeth in it. Listeners who’d like to study this issue should click on the Land Use Report link at www.kusp.org, and track down today’s transcript. I’ve also provided a link to a news story covering the Board’s deliberations. An acute reader will notice that the discussion was all about how to make sure that the new General Plan won’t contain any strong or enforceable “requirements” that would constrain that “flexibility” that the developers always want.

For KUSP, this is Gary Patton.

More Information:

Monterey County Herald Article
http://www.montereyherald.com/mld/
mcherald/living/community/12201575.htm

To learn why land use policy statements must be clear, and stated as a “requirement” if they’re to be enforceable, read “Land Use and the General Plan,” available on the LandWatch Monterey County website. The section on “How This Guidebook Is Organized,” and the chapter on “Permit Process Reform” are particularly relevant. The publication can be found at
http://www.landwatch.org/pages/publications.htm#generalplan

As I mentioned on Monday, there is a LAFCO in every California County. That’s a “Local Agency Formation Commission” for those who would like to get beyond the acronym. LAFCOs play a key role in land use decision making, because they decide whether and where cities and special districts should expand, and whether or not new cities should be created.

In Santa Cruz County, policies adopted by the voters in 1978 have helped protect agricultural land, and stop urban sprawl, but those policies wouldn’t have been worth much in the south part of Santa Cruz County if the Santa Cruz County LAFCO hadn’t stopped the City of Watsonville from annexing lots of the surrounding farmlands, and turning Watsonville into a junior version of Salinas. That was the City’s intention, about thirty years ago. The then-Mayor of Watsonville, Bill Johnston, used to talk about taking the City of Watsonville “from the mountains to the sea.” Everything in between the city limits and those boundaries is prime farmland.

If you’d like to see the Santa Cruz County LAFCO in action, there will be a particularly important and interesting public hearing at 9:30 a.m. on Wednesday, August 3rd, focusing on the recently-published Countywide Service Review. The Countywide Service Review is a comprehensive overview of public services within Santa Cruz County, and includes the four cities and over 80 special districts providing municipal-type services such as water, fire protection, and police protection.

For KUSP, this is Gary Patton.

More Information:

Public Hearing Notice
http://www.santacruzlafco.org/pages/notices/
CSR%20Notice%20July12.pdf

LAFCO Service Review
http://www.santacruzlafco.org/CSR.html