The Monterey County Local Agency Formation Commission, or LAFCO, meets at 4:00 o’clock this afternoon, and I found Item No. 7c particularly interesting. This is a report on the legislative activities of the California Association of LAFCOs.

CALAFCO, as it is called, is a statewide organization that represents the interests of LAFCOs in the State Capitol. Santa Cruz County Supervisor John Leopold is currently on the CALAFCO Board of Directors; Santa Cruz LAFCO Public Member Roger Anderson actually served as the CALAFCO Board President. The CALAFCO website is a good source of information on all matters related to LAFCO.

The CALAFCO legislative report indicates that Assembly Bill 1498, now pending in the Assembly, seeks to amend Government Code §56133. This is the section of law that has played such an important part in the applications of the City of Santa Cruz, and the University of California at Santa Cruz, in their effort to have City water services extended, to facilitate the construction of over three million square feet of new buildings on the UCSC North Campus. Those interested in that issue should take a look at AB 1498. You can find a link below.

More Information:

• Gary Patton’s Two Worlds Blog
• Monterey County LAFCO
• LAFCO Agenda, April 23, 2012 Meeting
• Staff Report, Agenda Item No. 7c
• Senate Bill 1498, As Introduced
• CALAFCO Website

Wittwer & Parkin LLP, the law firm with which I am associated, is representing the Community Water Coalition (CWC) on matters related to the proposed LAFCO applications.

The Salinas City Council is meeting this afternoon at 4:00 o’clock, at the City Hall in Salinas. There are a couple of items on the Council agenda that may be of interest to those who follow land use and development issues in that city. Under the “Public Hearing” heading, Item #1 is the consideration of a proposed adjustment of development impact fees associated with new development in Salinas. As you might imagine, the proposed “adjustment” would not lower, but would raise those impact fees by almost three percent, effective July 1st of this year. Under the “Consideration” heading, Item #2 is a Memorandum of Understanding between the County of Monterey and the City, relating to planning of the Downtown Government Center.

Residents of the City of Santa Cruz should be aware that the Santa Cruz City Council is also meeting this afternoon and this evening. At 7:00 p.m., the Council will be holding a study session on the City’s Capital Improvement Program. I found it interesting that the pages relating to the development of a desalination plant for the City never use the word “desalination.” Instead, this project (ultimately to cost over $100 million) is described as Project # c700305, or “Water Supply Project.” As usual, you can find links below.

More Information:

• Gary Patton’s Two Worlds Blog
• Santa Cruz City Council Agenda, Tuesday April 24, 2012
• City of Santa Cruz Capital Improvement Program Budget
• City of Salinas Website
• Salinas City Council Agenda, Tuesday April 24, 2012
• Video with Gary Patton remarks at a “Right To Vote on Desal” Event held on April 7, 2012

There is some good news for those who have more or less assumed that there is a legal right to challenge proposed development projects, if you think a local government hasn’t followed the law. Neighbors, and two environmental organizations, thought that a couple of development permits granted by San Mateo County should not have been granted. They therefore appealed to the Coastal Commission, to ask for Coastal Commission review. Again, this seems normal, and fair; you can always appeal, right?

Well not necessarily, at least according to the developer. The developer sued the neighbors, and the two environmental organizations, and the Coastal Commission, in a lawsuit that seemed designed to stifle public participation. This is a prototypical “SLAPP” suit, a “strategic lawsuit against public participation.” If you can be sued for exercising your right to appeal that definitely chills your willingness to get involved.

San Mateo County Superior Court Judge Marie Weiner found for the defendants, who included the Committee for Green Foothills, Montara Neighbors for Responsible Development, and nine individuals. She ruled that these appellants were legally entitled to file the appeal to the Coastal Commission, and could not be individually sued for doing so. The Judge issued an order awarding the defendants more than $52,000 in attorney fees and costs, as provided by the state’s Anti-SLAPP statute. There’s a link below.

More Information:

• Gary Patton’s Two Worlds Blog
• Committee For Green Foothills
• California Anti-SLAPP Law

Jonathan Wittwer and Ryan Moroney of Wittwer and Parkin LLP, the law firm with which I am associated, represented the neighbors and organizations in the anti-SLAPP action. Ronald Zumbrun of Arcata represented the developer, Thomas Mahon.

Under current law, protection for the Coastal Zone is provided through strong state policies, as found in the Coastal Act. These policies, however, are not directly implemented by either the Coastal Commission or any other state agency – at least not in the normal case. State policies control what happens, but the enforcement and application of those policies occurs not at the “state,” but at the “local” level. The “LCP,” or “Local Coastal Program,” is the mechanism that translates state policy into local policy. Each local government with land in the state-defined “Coastal Zone” has to adopt its own planning parameters, consistent with state policy requirements. That’s the LCP. Once the local government has received Coastal Commission approval for its LCP, the local government is the normal permitting agency, subject to a right of appeal, in some instances, to the Commission.

Naturally, adopting, revising, and implementing the LCP costs money. There was a proposal in early state budget language to eliminate the LCPs. In essence, that probably would have ended the state-local partnership on coastal protection. You can read a Coastal Commission staff report with the link below. As it turns out, and luckily, I think, such radical changes are apparently not going to be coming to the Coastal Permit process.

More Information:

• Gary Patton’s Two Worlds Blog
• Coastal Commission Staff Report on Trailer Bill Language on LCP Elimination

I try to cover important land use related issues here on the KUSP Land Use Report, and I encourage listeners to let me know of items they think I should put on the air. I also want to hear from you when I’ve made a mistake, or misstatement, or when I haven’t talked about something important, or if you think I have mischaracterized the issues in some way. You can email me by visiting the Land Use Report Blog, at kusp.org/landuse.

One listener recently suggested that I alert the Land Use Report audience to a website maintained by the Sierra Club’s Ventana Chapter, which covers both Monterey and Santa Cruz Counties. Indeed, this website does have good information on land use issues that I may not have been able to cover. There is a link in today’s transcript.

If you are interested in learning about the role of water policy in the proposed long-term growth and development of the University of California at Santa Cruz, you might want to mark your calendar for a presentation on Sunday, April 29th, from 7:00 to 8:00 p.m. The presentation will be held in Room 159 at Kresge College. UCSC Lecturer David Shaw is sponsoring this event. Participating will be Natalie Nugent and Wicapeluta Candelaria of the group “Long Range Resistance.” Comments by Rick Longinotti of the Right to Vote on Desal Coalition, and by me, are also on the program.

More Information:

• Gary Patton’s Two Worlds Blog
• Sierra Club Website

Wittwer & Parkin LLP, the law firm with which I am associated, is representing the Community Water Coalition (CWC) with respect to some of the water policy issues related to the proposed growth of UCSC. The firm also represents the Sierra Club, Ventana Chapter on various issues.