Congratulations are in order for Santa Cruz County Supervisor Mark Stone! Last Friday, Speaker of the Assembly Karen Bass appointed Supervisor Stone to the California Coastal Commission. Stone will represent the Central Coast Region on the Commission. This Region includes San Mateo, Santa Cruz, and Monterey Counties.

As you have often heard on the Land Use Report, the Coastal Commission supervises the implementation of the California Coastal Act, which displaces local authority over land use within the Coastal Zone. Generally speaking, local governments have plenary power to set land use policy within the areas over which they have jurisdiction, but that’s not true in the Coastal Zone! In the Coastal Zone, local governments have to conform their land use policies to the environmentally protective policies contained in the Coastal Act. To make sure they do this correctly, there is a complicated system of state oversight, in which the Commission plays the key role.

Because the Coastal Commission can override local land use authority, state law has tried to make sure that the Commission will be sensitive to local government concerns. A large number of the members of the Commissioners are local officials, selected by the Assembly Speaker, the President pro Tem of the State Senate, and the Governor.

Forty-five environmental groups urged Speaker Bass to appoint Supervisor Stone to the Central Coast seat. They are delighted that she did so.

For KUSP, this is Gary Patton.

More Information

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

State Coastal Act
http://www.coastal.ca.gov/ccatc.html

Coastal Commission Membership Roster
http://www.coastal.ca.gov/roster.html

Santa Cruz Sentinel Article on Stone Appointment
http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/localnews/ci_13183690

Monterey County Herald Article
http://www.montereyherald.com/local/ci_13183897?nclick_check=1

Supervisorial elections last year in San Luis Obispo County resulted in the election of a new Board of Supervisors which observers expected would be more environmentally protective and less developmentally oriented than the former Board. An item on today’s agenda indicates that the new Board may well be going to take a more environmentally protective approach to land use.

Item C-2 on today’s agenda bundles a number of land use policy items together; they are related by all requiring an amendment of the County General Plan. Since local governments can only make a limited number of changes to their General Plan each year, it is common practice for local governments to combine different planning items together, in a single official action amending the General Plan. That’s what’s happening today, in San Luis Obispo County.

To me, the indication that something may have changed in terms of policy in San Luis Obispo County is the recommendation that the Board to deny a proposed General Plan amendment that would have converted agricultural land to commercial, residential, and industrial uses. For those who would like to maintain the agricultural and rural nature of San Luis Obispo County, it’s good news to see the Board saying “no” to land use development proposals that might bring in more tax revenue, but that would do so at the expense of agriculture and open space. You can get links below.

For KUSP, this is Gary Patton.

More Information:

San Luis Obispo County Board of Supervisors’ Agenda
http://slocounty.granicus.com/AgendaViewer.php?
view_id=2&event_id=55

Staff Report, Agenda Item #C-2
http://slocounty.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?
view_id=2&event_id=55&meta_id=152036

I closely follow the decisions made by the California Appeal Courts, and the California Supreme Court, as those decisions relate to land use policy. You can do the same. I’ve put a link in the transcript of today’s Land Use Report to a website that provides access to the latest opinions. I’ve also highlighted an opinion that was handed down last Friday, which may have significant impacts on the residents of mobilehome parks.

In many jurisdictions, local governments have established a system of mobilehome park rent control, to help protect mobilehome park residents from predatory pricing practices of park owners. Park owners, typically, dislike such rent control ordinances, and sometimes try to escape their provisions by converting “rental” mobilehome parks to “ownership” mobilehome parks. In Sonoma County, the Board of Supervisors enacted a local ordinance that tried to provide protection to mobilehome park residents in connection with any effort to convert a “rental” mobilehome park to an “ownership” park. On Friday, the First District Court of Appeal struck down that local ordinance. The key issue was whether state law “preempted” local governmental authority, and the Appellate Court said that it did.

I feel certain that local officials in the Central Coast region will soon be consulting with their legal advisors on the impacts that this decision may have on their own local ordinances. If you are interested in this topic, you might want to read the opinion yourself.

For KUSP, this is Gary Patton.

More Information:

Court Opinions Website
http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/

Sequoia Park Associates v. County of Sonoma
http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/A120049.PDF

A recent court decision has overthrown a local ordinance adopted by the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors. The Sonoma County ordinance was intended to help prevent “sham” proposals to convert mobilehome parks from “rental” park status to “ownership” park status. Mobilehome park rent control provides significant economic protection to mobilehome park residents, but is eliminated by conversions of mobilehome parks to “ownership” status. Sonoma County was trying, through its local ordinance, to help mobilehome park residents in that county.

I thought the Court’s discussion of state “preemption” of local governmental authority was of particular note. Local governments have no, ultimate, independent governmental authority. Local governments get their governmental authority from state law. However, the Appellate Court said, with respect to local government land use authority, that “when local government regulates in an area over which it traditionally has exercised control, such as . . . particular land uses, California courts will presume, absent a clear indication of preemptive intent from the Legislature, that such regulation is not preempted by state statute.”

While the court found “preemption” in this case, it reinforced the overall authority of local governments to make local laws about land use. This is a good reason to get engaged on the local level.

For KUSP, this is Gary Patton.

More Information

Court Opinions Website
http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/

Sequoia Park Associates v. County of Sonoma
http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/A120049.PDF

Interested persons can get written transcripts of these Land Use Reports by clicking on the Land Use Report icon on the KUSP website. Almost always, I put links in the transcripts, to provide background information. If you were to read the transcript for today’s Land Use Report, you’d see that the title is, “What’s An IRWMP?” I’m betting that not too many of you know.

An “IRWMP” is an “Integrated Regional Water Management Plan.” That’s what the acronym stands for. IRWMPs are a creature of state law, and when properly adopted allow the regions which have them to apply for state funding for various water management projects. Links to relevant materials about IRWMPs are found in the transcript of today’s Land Use Report.

The “news item” today is not that there is such a thing as an IRWMP (though I do expect that this comes as new information to many of you). In fact, I want to highlight a new proposal to create a new IRWMP region, to be called the “Greater Monterey County Region.” The proposed new region would include most of Monterey County, including the Big Sur Coast, Marina, Prunedale, Salinas, and the Salinas Valley. The Carmel Valley watershed and the Monterey Peninsula would be excluded.

Water and land use planning go together. Those interested in land use in Monterey County should definitely start getting involved in this new IRWMP proposal!

For KUSP, this is Gary Patton.

More Information

State Integrated Regional Water Management Website
http://www.water.ca.gov/irwm/

Integrated Regional Water Management Planning Act
http://www.water.ca.gov/irwm/leginfo/legis_IRWM_Act.cfm

Central Coast Wetlands Group Website
http://ccwg.mlml.calstate.edu/irwmp/