The Housing Element is one of seven “mandated” elements of the local General Plan. Every city and county must adopt a comprehensive and integrated General Plan, focusing on (1) land use; (2) circulation; (3) noise; (4) conservation; (5) open space; (6) safety, and (7) housing. General Plan requirements are set out in the State Government Code, and I’ve placed references in the transcript to today’s Land Use Report. You can find that below.

Of all the General Plan Elements, the requirements for the Housing Element are the most detailed and demanding. Furthermore, whereas the City Council or Board of Supervisors ordinarily has the “last word” on other elements of the General Plan (absent voter intervention, of course), state law gives the State Department of Housing and Community Development (or HCD) the authority to “certify” local Housing Elements. Santa Cruz County has been having a hard time getting HCD to certify its Housing Element, which I know has been frustrating. Take in the meeting on Wednesday, to learn more about the controversy.

For KUSP, this is Gary Patton.

More Information

Santa Cruz County Planning Department Website
http://www.sccoplanning.com/

Planning Commission Agenda, September 27, 2006
http://sccounty01.co.santa-cruz.ca.us/planning/plnmeetings/
ASP/Display/ASPX/DisplayAgenda.aspx?MeetingDate=9/27/
2006&MeetingType=1

General Plan Requirements in State Law
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?
section=gov&group=65001-66000&file=65300-65303.4

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?
section=gov&group=65001-66000&file=65350-65362

State Law Provisions on Housing Elements
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?
section=gov&group=65001-66000&file=65580-65589.8

Like most Boards of Supervisors, the Monterey County Board meets on Tuesdays, and they do put a listing of agenda items (though not the agenda materials themselves) online.

The agenda for today’s meeting contains some interesting land use policy items, the most interesting of which seem to be scheduled for closed session discussion, so the public is excluded. The State’s Ralph M. Brown Act, mandating open government, has an exception for private consultations between the Board and its attorneys, to discuss litigation items, or “threats of litigation.” This exception to open meeting requirements has been frequently employed by the Monterey County Board, which actually planned the biggest development project in Monterey County history, Rancho San Juan, behind closed doors. At any rate, Monterey County residents who want to keep abreast of important land use issues should take a look at the Board’s weekly agenda.

Item #19 on the Consent Agenda for today is worthy of such review. One of the most important land use policy issues facing Monterey County is whether or not the unincorporated area of Carmel Valley will become an independent city. Item #19 authorizes the Chairperson of the Board to pay Santa Clara County $20,000 for advice about this incorporation effort in Monterey County. Carmel Valley residents may want to track down what’s going on.

For KUSP, this is Gary Patton.

More Information

Monterey County Board of Supervisors Agenda for September 26, 2006
http://www.co.monterey.ca.us/cttb/agenda092606.htm

Yesterday, I pointed out that Monterey County residents could keep up with what their Board of Supervisors is doing by reviewing the upcoming agenda listing online. In San Luis Obispo County, and Santa Cruz County, interested persons can get the actual agenda materials online. But the agenda listing, of course, is the key. Once a citizen or resident knows what topics are coming up, they have a right to review all the items not related to a “closed session” discussion, and they can show up and comment at any meeting of their elected officials, if they want to. This is true for all governmental agencies in California, not just Boards of Supervisors.

I try to make it easy for listeners to get more engaged by providing links to the relevant materials as part of the transcripts of each Land Use Report. I really do encourage you to track down what your local government is doing, and to review the actual documents. Self-government doesn’t work unless we get involved ourselves, and modern technology can make it pretty easy to become informed and involved, at least if the local government is trying to facilitate that kind of engagement.

Today, I’m providing a link to the agenda of the Transportation Agency of Monterrey County, or TAMC, which will be acting today on a contract to spend $207,000 to public relations consultants. TAMC is working to get the public to approve an increased transportation tax. They’re calling it a “Public Awareness Program.”

For KUSP, this is Gary Patton.

More Information

The TAMC Websit
http://www.tamcmonterey.org/

Agenda for September 27, 2006 Meeting
http://www.tamcmonterey.org/tamc/
meetings/2006/sept/pdf/agenda.pdf

The Coalition For Limiting University Expansion (or CLUE) is a group based in the City of Santa Cruz. CLUE has been working for a couple of years to try to make sure that the future growth of the UCSC Campus doesn’t overwhelm the City of Santa Cruz with unacceptable levels of traffic, intolerable pressures on the local housing market, and unattainable demands on the City’s scarce water supplies.

Under the California Constitution, the University is pretty much independent of any direct control by local government. If the UCSC campus were a “corporate” business campus, proposed expansion efforts would need to conform to the local general plan. That’s not true where the University is concerned, and the University of California Regents, at their meeting last week, overrode local concerns about their projected future growth, and pretty much told the local officials in attendance that the University reserved the right to grow to any size in the future, as it seeks to carry out its admittedly statewide responsibilities.

Tomorrow, from 5:00 to 7:00 p.m., at Bookshop Santa Cruz, CLUE will be holding a campaign kickoff for Measures I and J, which will appear on the November 7th ballot. These measures would help the City of Santa Cruz exercise more control over future University expansion. I’ve placed links to the full text of these two measures in the transcript for Today’s Land Use Report.

For KUSP, this is Gary Patton.

More Information

UC Sues The City of Santa Cruz Over Growth Measures
http://cbs5.com/education/local_story_244150521.html

Listing of November 7, 2006 Ballot Measures in Santa Cruz County
http://www.votescount.com/nov06/lm.htm

Santa Cruz City Measure I
http://www.votescount.com/nov06/meai.pdf

Santa Cruz City Measure J
http://www.votescount.com/nov06/meaj.pdf

CLUE Website
http://www.santacruzclue.org/index.html

For more information on the CLUE Campaign Kickoff, contact Samantha Fold at 831-502-2987 or 818-802-6510

We will all soon have an opportunity to peruse a thick ballot pamphlet, with the text and arguments covering the exceptionally large number of bond issues and other ballot measures that will confront us in this election. I encourage you to study up!

Bonds mean “borrowing,” as in going into debt, and thinking about whether we should go further into debt, and for what reasons, is always a pretty prudent course of conduct.

Proposition 1A, if enacted, would provide certainty for road funding, and more uncertainty for everything else. Proposition 1B would allocate $20 Billion dollars for various transportation improvements, mostly roads, without any “smart growth” guarantees. Proposition 1C would provide $2.8 Billion dollars for affordable housing, and does contain some smart growth requirements. Proposition 1D would allocate $10.4 Billion dollars for educational facilities, and Proposition 1E would authorize $4 Billion dollars for flood control. Unfortunately, the language of 1E permits the construction of levees to allow new subdivisions in flood prone areas, sort of contraindicated as a flood protection strategy.

All these borrowing measures were put on the ballot by the Legislature. Proposition 84 is an initiative bond measure, which would borrow $5.4 Billion dollars for parks, recreation, and watershed protection.

For KUSP, this is Gary Patton.

More Information

You can get full information on all the bond issues on the Secretary of State’s website, at the following location
http://www.ss.ca.gov/elections/elections_j.htm#2006General