The Monterey County Board of Supervisors is back from their summer recess, and will soon be considering GPU #5, the fifth version of a County “General Plan Update.”

The current General Plan was adopted in 1982, so it is now about 28 years old. The Board has been talking about “updating” the General Plan since 1999. That’s eleven years, now, working on this project. Very recently, the Monterey County Planning Commission completed its required review of GPU #5, so the ball is now in the Board’s court. Today through Wednesday, I thought I’d highlight some of the critical issues, so you can begin thinking about your own possible participation in the General Plan Update process.

No other document can trump the General Plan, in terms of its importance. Once a General Plan is in place, all other planning and project decisions must be “consistent” with the adopted General Plan. Public works projects have to be consistent with the General Plan, too. If the community can ever get a clear and unambiguous set of General Plan policies, developers and the public alike will be able to know what the rules are. Without that kind of adopted General Plan in place, every planning decision is in essence an “ad hoc” decision, in which “politics,” in the worse sense of the word, can have a field day. There’s a lot at stake as the Board considers GPU #5. I will give you some specifics tomorrow.

More Information:

Gary Patton writes a daily blog, “Two Worlds / 365”
http://www.gapatton.net

Land Use And The General Plan
http://www.landwatch.org/pages/publications03/
gpsummit/landusegeneralplan.pdf

County General Plan Website
http://www.co.monterey.ca.us/planning/gpu/
GPU_2007/gpu_2007.htm

LandWatch Monterey County letters on key General Plan issues
http://www.landwatch.org/pages/issuesactions/
countyplan/052410LWcommentsFinalEIRtoPC.html

http://www.landwatch.org/pages/issuesactions/
countyplan/072010LWcommentsFEIRtoPC.pdf

Water is vital for life, and for any kind of proposed development, and Monterey County has entered the 21st Century with significant, existing water supply and water quality problems. The Salinas Valley is experiencing groundwater overdraft. North Monterey County is in what ought to be called an “extreme crisis,” and Carmel Valley has essentially no water whatsoever available for anything, by way of new development. What, then, should the General Plan Update do?

I’ve included a link in the written transcript for today’s Land Use Report to a comprehensive letter filed by LandWatch, documenting the very real water supply problems facing the County. The letter includes an abundance of technical detail. It may be that the County will be successful with its proposed Regional Water Project, based on desalination, but the project has not yet even been approved, much less constructed, and the Board will be asked to adopt a set of General Plan policies before there is a new water supply; at least, that’s what everyone expects.

The most prudent set of policies, in this kind of situation, would be to have the General Plan tell both the public and “developers” that virtually no new development will be permitted until there is a demonstrated, adequate new water supply. Policies to protect water quality would also be in order. It appears that GPU #5 may need “upgrading” in both of these areas.

More Information:

Gary Patton writes a daily blog, “Two Worlds / 365”
http://www.gapatton.net

Land Use And The General Plan
http://www.landwatch.org/pages/publications03/
gpsummit/landusegeneralplan.pdf

County General Plan Website
http://www.co.monterey.ca.us/planning/gpu/
GPU_2007/gpu_2007.htm

LandWatch Monterey County letters on key General Plan issues
http://www.landwatch.org/pages/issuesactions/
countyplan/052410LWcommentsFinalEIRtoPC.html

http://www.landwatch.org/pages/issuesactions/
countyplan/072010LWcommentsFEIRtoPC.pdf

As the Monterey County Planning Commission moved towards final action on the proposed new General Plan Update, the Commission considered specific language changes in a number of places in the proposed GPU #5 document. Proposed changes were highlighted in Chapter Title Pages, the Introduction, the Land Use Element, the Circulation Element, the Conservation/Open Space Element, the Safety Element, the Public Service Element, the Agriculture Element, and the Economic Development Element.

In addition, changes were proposed in the following Area/Master Plans: the Cachagua Area Plan; the Carmel Valley Master Plan; the Central Salinas Valley Area Plan; the Greater Monterey Peninsula Area Plan; the Greater Salinas Area Plan; the North County Area Plan; the South County Area Plan; and the Toro Area Plan.

A page on the County’s website makes it very easy to see what the controversial issues were at the Planning Commission level. By clicking on the provided link, you can scan through the various sections of the proposed GPU #5, and decide what you think about the policy choices being made. Checking out these areas of discussion and controversy will get you prepared for the hearings and discussion before the Board of Supervisors.

GPU #5 will make a difference for Monterey County. You still have time to get involved.

More Information:

Gary Patton writes a daily blog, “Two Worlds / 365”
http://www.gapatton.net

Land Use And The General Plan
http://www.landwatch.org/pages/publications03/
gpsummit/landusegeneralplan.pdf

County General Plan Website
http://www.co.monterey.ca.us/planning
/gpu/GPU_2007/gpu_2007.htm

LandWatch Monterey County letters on key General Plan issues
http://www.landwatch.org/pages/issuesactions/
countyplan/052410LWcommentsFinalEIRtoPC.html

http://www.landwatch.org/pages/issuesactions/
countyplan/072010LWcommentsFEIRtoPC.pdf

Page with “clickable” links to latest changes proposed to Planning Commission
http://www.co.monterey.ca.us/planning/gpu/
Working%20Draft%20GP_07-2010/Working_
Drat_GP_07_2010.htm

Here is a “heads up” about an upcoming professional education program called, “Understanding SLAPPs: Process and Procedure from Initiation through Appeal." This is definitely a program intended for attorneys, and it costs money, but I think those who follow land use law and policy might like to know something about SLAPP suits.

The acronym SLAPP, or S-L-A-P-P, stands for “Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation.” Here’s what I am talking about. You and your neighbors decide to oppose a big shopping center development. You write letters to everyone you can think of, bad-mouthing the developer’s motives and the project in general, and you appear at a public hearing to make the same points. Whoops. All of a sudden you find that you’ve been sued for defamation and trespass (you did go onto the property didn’t you?), and you are facing a claim for $180,000,000. I actually represented some activists in almost exactly that situation. Naturally, your possible exposure to this kind of a massive judgment might chill your ardor to oppose the development. The lawsuit is a SLAPP. It was strategically designed to discourage public participation.

Thanks to the California State Legislature, those who file SLAPP suits will get slapped right back. That is to say, defendants in SLAPP suits can have the case dismissed, and get their attorneys fees and costs. So, don’t be afraid to get engaged!

More Information:

Gary Patton writes a daily blog, “Two Worlds / 365”
http://www.gapatton.net

The “Understanding SLAPPs” program is scheduled for October 6th in Los Angeles. You can get more information, and can register, at the following website
http://www.pincusproed.com/view_seminar.php?id=1ez6

Wikipedia on SLAPP Suits
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_
lawsuit_against_public_participation

The California Anti-SLAPP Project
http://casp.net/statutes/cal425.html

As I am perusing governmental websites, looking for links, I sometimes find myself on the “biography” pages that provide information on the elected officials of a particular city or county. Perhaps, I think, I should provide links to those pages, just as I provide links to policy materials. Public policy is definitely about laws, and regulations, and agendas, and reports. But it’s about “personalities,” too.

My pitch on the Land Use Report is that there is no substitute for personal involvement, and that if you think that “democratic self-government” is something that someone else does, you don’t quite get the concept. Elected officials, when you get to know them (in person or by reading their “biography” pages) are just as “ordinary” and as “extraordinary” as all the rest of us. I encourage your participation in public policy debate and discussion, and that means I encourage you to get to know your local elected officials personally. If you don’t know a few City Council Members, or Board Members personally, you may not have been going to enough meetings.

When I was a member of the Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors, I held a weekly meeting each Monday morning, as a way to make myself accessible to the public. Not all elected officials do that, but we, as members of the public, can take the initiative ourselves. Check out the biography links in the transcript of today’s Land Use Report, and get to know your local elected officials!

More Information

Gary Patton writes a daily blog, “Two Worlds / 365”
http://www.gapatton.net

Meet The Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors
http://www.co.santa-cruz.ca.us/bds/ctysupvs.htm

Meet The Monterey County Board of Supervisors
http://www.co.monterey.ca.us/cob/supervisor.htm

You can get more “personal links” by tracking down the websites for the local jurisdictions in which you are most interested. A good place to start is with the “Land Use Links” I provide on the KUSP website:
http://www.kusp.org/landuse/2009/11/30b.html