Last Tuesday, the Monterey County Local Agency Formation Commission (or LAFCO) was scheduled to make a decision that was expected to lead to a vote by Carmel Valley residents on whether or not to create a new town of Carmel Valley. LAFCO has had this item before it for years. A number of Carmel Valley residents believe that local control over land use (among other things) would be highly desirable, and for that reason have been trying to create a new town of Carmel Valley. If they are ultimately successful, the Monterey County Board of Supervisors will no longer have land use jurisdiction.

Instead of taking action last Tuesday, LAFCO continued its meeting until 4:00 p.m. today. Maybe LAFCO Commissioners didn't want to give a Thanksgiving Day present to the proponents of incorporation. Whatever the reason, I think that LAFCO's delays are coming to an end this afternoon. If you are interested in this topic, you might want to consider attending the LAFCO meeting, which will be held in Salinas. A link to relevant materials is found below. Particularly interesting is a decision by the Monterey County Superior Court, which found that LAFCO had no legal basis to require an EIR, prior to taking action to let Carmel Valley voters have their say about the incorporation proposal.

For KUSP, this is Gary Patton.

More Information
Monterey County LAFCO Website
http://000sweb.co.monterey.ca.us/lafco/

LAFCO Materials on Incorporation Vote
http://000sweb.co.monterey.ca.us/lafco/carmel_valley
_incorporation.htm

Monterey Herald Story
http://www.montereyherald.com/local/ci_11078362?
nclick_check=1

Monterey County Weekly Story
http://www.montereycountyweekly.com/archives/2008/
2008-Nov-26/lafco-pushes-carmel-valley-incorporation-
decision-to-monday/1/@@index

A story in the Monterey County Herald announced some upcoming fiscal problems for the Monterey County Planning and Building Department. As construction activity declines (and that's what happens when there's an economic downturn) applications for planning and building permits also decline. Virtually the entire Planning and Building Department budget is financed with fee revenues, associated with permit applications, so when those fee revenues decline, expenditures either have to decline, too, or staffing and other costs must be paid for with other funds. And of course, there aren't any other funds to look to, at this point.

Tying staffing levels to fee revenues makes a certain degree of sense, with respect to the permit process functions of the Planning Department. More staff are needed when there is lots of activity (and that's when the fee revenues to pay for that staffing also increase). Nonetheless, it's hard to keep a professional staff at the ready, if jobs are created and eliminated based on the business cycle. What's more, the system really doesn't work on the planning side of things. If planning work can only be financed when fees are received from project proponents, it's very hard to plan ahead. Combining decisions on the long term General Plan with project proposals is a sure way to shortchange real advance planning. Yet, that's the way the whole system works, financially.

For KUSP, this is Gary Patton.

More Information

Monterey County Herald Story
http://www.montereyherald.com/local/ci_11078371

Tomorrow night, at 7:00 p.m., the Santa Cruz City Planning Commission will be meeting in the Santa Cruz City Council Chambers, located at 809 Center Street. This might be a meeting worth attending.

Agenda Item #1 will be a presentation on the UCSC and City of Santa Cruz Comprehensive Settlement Agreement. The City and local land use activists both sued the University of California, challenging the University's approval of a Long Range Development Plan for the UCSC Campus. Both the City and the activists felt that the Long Range Development Plan proposed by UCSC did not address traffic, water supply, housing, and other impacts in a comprehensive and legally-adequate way, and a Superior Court Judge thought that a number of the City's criticisms were justified. Ultimately, to cut short further litigation, the parties settled. If you'd like to understand the implications of that settlement agreement, the meeting tomorrow night will be of interest.

The Planning Commission is also going to be discussing the draft General Plan Alternative Land Use Designations for Major Corridors. By the end of the meeting, the Commission is expected to provide direction to the staff on a preferred alternative.

The City's General Plan is going to play a determinative role in the future growth and development of the City of Santa Cruz. Santa Cruz City residents should take note. Now's the time to get involved!

For KUSP, this is Gary Patton.

More Information

City of Santa Cruz Website
http://www.ci.santa-cruz.ca.us/

I've been teaching a course at De Anza College in Cupertino, entitled Introduction to Environmental Law. The course textbook repeatedly makes the point that our system of law reflects the tri-partite nature of our political and governmental system, in which we have a legislative, executive, and judicial branch. The Legislature enacts statutory laws; the Executive Branch promulgates regulations, to implement the statutes; the Courts interpret what the statutes and regulations actually mean, when there's a dispute about their meaning, or about how they should be applied in any particular situation.

Each of these activities, in essence, makes the law, and it's vitally important that each one of these activities, and each branch of government, be allowed its role in the overall system. It is the checks and balances of our legal and political system that produces a society that is governed by law, instead of by influence, interest, or violence.

Yesterday's Land Use Report mentioned a lawsuit filed against the University of California by the City of Santa Cruz and by local land use activists. Many believe that lawsuits and litigation should be disfavored, and that they represent some sort of governmental or political failure. The students in my class have learned just the opposite, that both legislation and litigation are critically necessary to the legal system we are so privileged enjoy.

For KUSP, this is Gary Patton.

More Information

Gary Patton De Anza Faculty Website
http://www.deanza.edu/faculty/pattongary/

Next week, the California Coastal Commission is going to be meeting in San Francisco. The Commission meets monthly, and always in the Coastal Zone, but since the Commission moves its meetings to a different location each month, and since California is pretty big, it's not always convenient to attend Commission meetings in person.

The San Francisco location for the upcoming meeting puts it within a reasonable driving distance for residents of the Central Coast, so I've provided a link to the agenda in the transcript of today's Land Use Report. You are definitely encouraged to watch the Coastal Commission in action, and incidentally, you don't actually have to drive to the meeting to do that. A live webcast of Commission meetings is available through the Commission's website. While the Commission does have a limited jurisdiction, it is, in many ways, the most professional land use policy agency currently operating in the state of California. Its staff analyses routinely provide the Commission with the kind of comprehensive and accurate information that allows the Commission to make good decisions, and its commitment to public participation is exemplary.

The Commission will meet on Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday of next week. Items from the Central Coast District will be heard on Wednesday. That includes an item relating to neighborhood compatibility in the unincorporated portions of Santa Cruz County, and the Commission will also act on affordable housing issues in the City of Carmel.

For KUSP, this is Gary Patton.

More Information

Coastal Commission Website
http://www.coastal.ca.gov/

Coastal Commission Agenda, December 2008
http://www.coastal.ca.gov/mtgcurr.html