Under the Williamson Act, a landowner who is willing voluntarily to enter into a commitment to maintain his or her land in agricultural use will sign a contract with the county in which the land is located. The contract is for a ten-year (or in Monterey County twenty-year) term, and the contract automatically extends for an additional year, at the end of each year. The upshot is to establish the landowner’s continuing commitment to agricultural land preservation. The landowner can only get out of that commitment by giving a “Notice of Non-Renewal,” which would then allow the landowner to try to develop the land after waiting for either ten or twenty years after giving the notice.

What does the landowner get in return for this voluntary reduction in his or her development possibilities? The landowner gets a significant property tax reduction. Thus, if the landowner actually wants to farm, the Williamson Act is a “good deal,” and it’s actually a good deal for the county, too, since there are very few public service costs associated with agricultural land. Even better, the State has reimbursed counties for the property tax reductions they experience. And here’s the rub. The state’s horrible budget situation has now led the state to withdraw financial support for the Williamson Act. Will Monterey County and other counties continue to enter into these contracts? We are going to find out pretty soon! Preliminary consideration of Williamson Act contracts by Monterey County is on tomorrow’s Board agenda.

For KUSP, this is Gary Patton.

More Information

Monterey County Website
http://www.co.monterey.ca.us/

Board Agendas
http://publicagendas.co.monterey.ca.us/

Today is decision day for Carmel Valley. Will voters approve the creation of a new Town of Carmel Valley; or, will they reject this proposition, and choose to continue to have their local government affairs handled by the Monterey County Board of Supervisors? To “incorporate,” or not? That is the question. And Hamlet-like indecision is not an option. The voters have to say either “yes,” or “no.” If they say “no,” there will probably never be a Town of Carmel Valley, at least during the lifetime of those listening to this edition of the Land Use Report. It’s taken about ten years to get this question to the voters, and if the voters don’t decide to set up their own local government today, it’s unlikely that anyone is going to start that process all over again. Certainly not in the near future!

On the other hand, if the voters of Carmel Valley decide they want more self-determination, and vote “yes” on Measure G, then the story is just beginning. “Self-government” means that we take charge of community affairs ourselves, going forward.

Land use issues aren’t the only issues of importance in the vote on Measure G, but they’re right at the top of the list. If Carmel Valley residents want to put control over future development in the hands of Carmel Valley residents, a “yes” vote on Measure G is the right vote. If they think the Monterey County Board of Supervisors is doing fine, and will do fine, on these land use decisions, then a “no” vote probably makes sense.

For KUSP, this is Gary Patton.

More Information:

Citizens For Carmel Valley (“Yes”) Website
http://citizensforcarmelvalley.com/

Save Carmel Valley (“No”) Website
http://savecarmelvalley.org/

Today, the nonprofit advocacy group called the “Greenbelt Alliance” is holding a workshop focusing on what might be called “zoning basics.” The “tag line” used by the Greenbelt Alliance is, “Open Spaces and Vibrant Places.” The Greenbelt Alliance, in other words, which does land use policy work in every one of the nine San Francisco Bay Area counties, is right in the middle of what is often called the “smart growth” movement. Though Santa Cruz and Monterey counties are outside the official “sphere of influence” of the Greenbelt Alliance, both counties are actually influenced in very significant ways by land use decision-making in the Bay Area. I like to follow what the Greenbelt Alliance is doing, and maybe you’d like to do that, too. You can get more information by going to the KUSP website, and then tracking down the transcript of today’s Land Use Report.

Today’s workshop is aimed at local residents who are either confused or frustrated by existing zoning regulations. The Greenbelt Alliance is promoting what they call a “form-based” zoning code. Increasingly, Americans are choosing to live and work in walkable, diverse communities with transit options, and local government decision-makers who want to create such communities may find themselves blocked by zoning regulations that are anti-urban. A new form-based zoning code may help provide a solution.

For KUSP, this is Gary Patton.

More Information:

Greenbelt Alliance Website
http://www.greenbelt.org/

Form Based Codes Information
http://www.formbasedcodes.org/

Greenbelt Workshop Announcement
https://app.e2ma.net/app/view:CampaignPublic/
id:35392.6533885963/rid:78d0b96e5ca4ed
33b625fe500079baec

Transcripts of these weekday Land Use Reports are found on the KUSP website. So are links to audio “podcasts” of the Land Use Report, and this means that you can get a dose of land use discussion, in both written and audio form, even if you’re not in the immediate Central Coast Region and listening over the air to KUSP. I encourage participation from Boston to Bolinas!

The written transcript for today’s Land Use Report is headlined, “Booze and Drugs.” If this doesn’t sound like a land use topic to you, think again. In fact, the power of our land use regulatory process is such that it affects nearly every aspect of our community life. The “Three E’s” of land use policy are generally said to be the “Environment,” the “Economy,” and how we address the Social “Equity” concerns that are so important to us. I guess we might add “Public Safety” to the list, even if that would move us from ”E’s” to “P.” Land use policy has a lot to do with public safety.

Tonight, the Planning Commission of the City of Santa Cruz will be meeting at the Santa Cruz City Hall, beginning at 7:00 p.m. On the agenda is consideration of a request to establish a high-risk alcohol outlet downtown. Another item to be considered by the Planning Commission this evening is a proposed amendment to the Municipal Code and to the Local Coastal Implementation Plan, modifying standards for Medical Marijuana Dispensaries.

For KUSP, this is Gary Patton.

More Information

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

If you like the vibrancy and diversity of downtown Santa Cruz, you might want to say a brief “thank you” to Mardi Wormhoudt, former Mayor of the City of Santa Cruz, who spearheaded efforts to rebuild the Santa Cruz Downtown after the Loma Prieta earthquake.

If you treasure the Santa Cruz County North Coast, and appreciate the fact that it has largely been preserved and protected forever, you might want to give a nod of recognition to the contributions of Mardi Wormhoudt, in making that happen. That would very much be in order.

As most KUSP listeners probably know, Mardi Wormhoudt died at age 72 on Wednesday, October 22nd, at her Westside Santa Cruz home. Mardi represented the Third District on the Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors for twelve years, and I was personally privileged to work with Mardi during her tenure as Mayor, and as a member of the Santa Cruz City Council, and even before that in her role as a community activist in the City Santa Cruz.

Tomorrow, a celebration and memorial recognizing the incredible community contributions of Mardi Wormhoudt will take place at the Stevenson College Dining Hall at UCSC, beginning at 11:00 o’clock in the morning. All members of the community are invited to come, and I hope I will see many of you there. We build our communities together, but individuals do make a difference. Mardi Wormhoudt made a powerful difference for all of those who are privileged to be able to live in Santa Cruz County.

For KUSP, this is Gary Patton.

More Information

Santa Cruz Sentinel Article on Mardi Wormhoudt
http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/
community/ci_13615187