One good way to find out what’s going on in your local community is to sign up for various email newsletters from environmental and community-based organizations, newspapers and television stations, and elected officials. If you do this, I can report from personal experience, you will confront a vastly larger “inbox” to go through each day. The good part is that you tend to find out about important issues and happenings before others do (presuming that they ever do find out about them). Anyway, it’s a suggestion you may want to consider!

Last week, the email newsletter published by Carmel City Council Member Jason Burnett announced that he would be hosting a “Town Hall” meeting this morning, from 8:30 to 10:00 o’clock. Council Member Burnett will be in the main lobby of the Sunset Center in Carmel, to discuss, among other things, possible solutions for a new regional water supply.

Also a topic this morning will be a recent Appellate Court decision about the proposed sale of the Flanders Mansion. The Sixth District Court of Appeal just came down with a ruling that will require Carmel to redo its Environmental Impact Report on the proposed sale of this historic structure. I am planning to dissect that decision on Friday, here on the Land Use Report. You can steal a march on that discussion by going to the Town Hall Meeting at the Sunset Center this morning.

More Information:

• Gary Patton’s Blog: Two Worlds
• Appellate Court Decision on Flanders Mansion
• Website of Council Member Jason Burnett
• Meeting Announcement – January 9, 2012 Town Hall Meeting

The Monterey County Board of Supervisors is meeting today. So is the Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors, for that matter. You can get links to the agendas of each of these meetings in the transcript of today’s Land Use Report.

Let me talk specifically about a couple of important items on the agenda of the Monterey County Board of Supervisors, noting first, however, that some of the “housekeeping” items on the Board’s agenda are actually of pretty great importance in and of themselves. The Board will be selecting a new Chair and Vice Chair, and will be making appointments to various committees and commissions. Don’t ever underrate how important these kinds of decisions are.

Substantively, the “big item” from a land use perspective is the Board’s consideration of the proposed Corral de Tierra Shopping Center. Big neighborhood impacts, and big impacts on Highway 68 traffic, can be expected if the Board approves the proposal. In order to approve it, the Board would have to adopt a “Statement of Overriding Considerations,” saying that the project should go ahead despite all the negative environmental impacts that have been identified in the EIR. That’s Agenda Item #S-3.

Agenda Item #S-4 is also important from a land use perspective. Rural subdivisions that would impair views, and that would chop down oak trees, may or may not be approved. All of these items will be heard at 1:30 today. If you care, you should be there!

More Information:

• Gary Patton’s Blog: Two Worlds
• January 10, 2012 Agenda, Monterey County Board of Supervisors
• January 10, 2012 Agenda, Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors
• Agenda Materials on Monterey County Board Item #S-3 (Corral de Tierra Shopping Center)
• Agenda Materials on Monterey County Board Item #S-4 (Rural Subdivisions)

The Santa Cruz County Transportation Commission is meeting tomorrow. The meeting will start at 9:00 o’clock in the morning, and will be held in the City of Santa Cruz City Council Chambers.

Agenda Item #7 is an interesting one; at least, I think so. The Commission staff is recommending that the Commission provide $22,500 in matching funds, to allow the Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments (or AMBAG) to proceed with what is called an “Origin and Destination Study.”

AMBAG has secured a $200,000 federal grant for this study, but AMBAG does need matching funds. An “Origin and Destination” study is a data gathering effort that seeks information, as the name implies, about where people driving on local streets and highways have come from, and where they are going. The study is kind of like a “poll” of drivers. If the study is done well, it should provide accurate information for AMBAG and the regional transportation planning agencies to use in their transportation modeling and planning efforts. The data gathered will be used to update and improve the regional travel demand model, and will help support transportation project development in the Monterey Bay region.

How will the data be collected? Apparently, some sort of photo system will capture license plate numbers, and then there will be a mail-in and web-based survey of the owners of the vehicles identified.

More Information:

• Gary Patton’s Blog: Two Worlds
• Transportation Commission Website
• January 12, 2012 Transportation Commission Agenda
• Agenda Item – Origin and Destination Study

On December 29th, the California Supreme Court filed its decision in California Redevelopment Association v. Ana Matasantos, who is the Director of the State Department of Finance. There is a link to the decision in today’s transcript.

This Supreme Court decision is going to have a major impact on land use, and perhaps particularly on affordable housing development. There were two major holdings. First, the Court said that the Legislature has full authority to decide what sort of governmental agencies have the right to exist. Redevelopment Agencies claimed that provisions in the State Constitution that were added by an initiative measure backed by the Redevelopment Agencies insulated them from last year’s legislation to terminate redevelopment. The Court totally rejected this argument. In California, the “state” government has plenary power to decide how the state is governed. Subsidiary governmental agencies don’t have any independent right to exist.

Second, in deciding to abolish Redevelopment Agencies last year, the Legislature provided a way for local governments to continue redevelopment efforts, by self-funding them. Unfortunately for the Redevelopment Agencies, the Supreme Court held that this law was unconstitutional, because it conflicted with the constitutional amendment that had been promoted by the Redevelopment Agencies themselves. Catch-22! Stand by for more legislation in this controversial area!

More Information:

• Gary Patton’s Blog: Two Worlds
• Supreme Court Decision on Redevelopment
• Fresno Bee Editorial on Redevelopment Decision

The Flanders Mansion is a two-story, 6,000-square foot Tudor Revival English Cottage, built in 1924. It’s listed on the National Register of Historic Places. Over the years, the Mansion has been used as a private residence, as an art institute, and as office space, but it has been vacant since 2003 and is in a deteriorating condition. Apparently, it would cost something like $1.5 million dollars to restore the Mansion to a usable status. If sold, the Mansion might be worth about $4 million dollars in its current condition. Given these figures, it’s easy to see why the City of Carmel has wanted to sell the Flanders Mansion.

Prior to selling, however, the City must comply with the California Environmental Quality Act, or CEQA. An earlier EIR was invalidated, and the Sixth District Court of Appeal has just ruled that the City’s second attempt to comply with CEQA was not adequate either. Specifically, the City failed to respond to a well-founded comment. A commenter asked why the City shouldn’t consider reducing the lot size proposed in connection with the sale of the Mansion, as a way to reduce environmental impacts. The City didn’t address this option, and that was a mistake.

A link to the decision is found in today’s transcript. The decision shows the power of CEQA, and why members of the public should read and comment on Draft EIRs.

More Information:

• Gary Patton’s Blog: Two Worlds
• Sixth District Court of Appeal Decision on Proposed Sale of the Flanders Mansion