The Ralph M. Brown Act, enacted in 1953, starts off with a declaration central to our idea of self-government:

The people of this State do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies which serve them. The people, in delegating authority, do not give their public servants the right to decide what is good for the people to know and what is not good for them to know. The people insist on remaining informed so that they may retain control over the instruments they have created.

If we are to "remain informed,” we need to watch carefully what local government agencies do. The Brown Act is intended to guarantee the right of the public to know what’s happening. There are very definite rules that government agencies must follow. Normally, they must meet on a regular schedule, but if there is a need for a meeting outside that normal schedule, special notices have to be provided.

Tonight, the Board of Directors of the Marina Coast Water District is holding a "Special Meeting,” pursuant to the Brown Act, including a closed session, and will decide whether or not to submit a comment letter on the Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project Draft Environmental Impact Report. That could be a very important letter. Here’s the catch, the General Manager says if you want to know what is in the letter, you will have to come to the meeting in person. He doesn’t have it ready yet. Concerned listeners might consider going to that meeting.

More Information

• Land Use Links
• Gary Patton’s Two Worlds Blog
• Marina Coast Water District Website
• Board Agenda, June 29, 2015 Special Meeting
• Ralph M. Brown Act

Two weeks ago, I tried, in my own modest way, to create some sort of groundswell of social media recognition for a campaign sponsored by Global Population Speakout. Overpopulation and overdevelopment are serious issues, both globally and locally, and land use practices definitely reflect how we approach these serious topics. A campaign to raise public awareness of the issues is being spearheaded by an organization called Global Population Speakout, and the group has published a truly striking, coffee-table sized book that can be viewed online. If listeners are interested, they should track down today’s Land Use Report blog, at kusp.org/landuse.

Now, here is what I was hoping to accomplish. I was hoping that listeners might be motivated to "advertise” the Overpopulation/Overdevelopment campaign by posting some information about it on their Facebook pages, or to their Twitter accounts, to get the word out. Let me reiterate the offer I made back on June 16th. If you will use whatever social media you might be involved in to advertise the campaign, and will let me know you did that, I will put your name into a drawing to win a free copy of the actual print version of the Overpopulation/Overdevelopment/Overshoot book. But you will need to do that today! I am encouraging you to get engaged!

More Information:

• Land Use Links
• Gary Patton’s Two Worlds Blog
• June 16, 2015 Land Use Report - Overshoot
• Website: Global Population Speak Out
• The Book: Overdevelopment, Overpopulation, Overshoot
• Contest Rules and Procedures

Cock a doodle do! Depending on where you live in Monterey County, this may be a wake up call you hear quite frequently, and it may not be a wake up call that you actually want to hear. As frequent listeners know, the land use and regulatory powers of local government are "plenary,” which means that local government agencies have broad discretion to establish whatever rules and regulations such agencies believe will advance the public health, safety and welfare.

Monterey County Ordinance 5249 requires a permit for "Rooster Keeping Operations,” which means you need an official County permit, or an exemption, in any case where five or more roosters are kept on any single property within the unincorporated areas of Monterey County.

The purpose of the Monterey County Rooster Ordinance is to balance the legitimate interests of agricultural businesses and agricultural educational organizations with the prevention of rooster keeping that is unsanitary, environmentally damaging, inhumane, and conducive to illegal cockfighting. Starting in the middle of July, no "Rooster Keeping Operation” can legally operate in the unincorporated areas of Monterey County without either a permit or an exemption.

I have put a link to the County’s Rooster Ordinance website in today’s Land Use Report blog. You can find that, as always, at kusp.org/landuse.

More Information:

• Land Use Links
• Gary Patton’s Two Worlds Blog
• Monterey County Rooster Website

On June 26th, the United States Supreme Court handed down its decision in the Obergefell case, holding that state laws preventing, or penalizing, marriage between two persons of the same sex are unconstitutional. The United States Constitution trumps any state (or federal) law that is inconsistent with the Constitution, so no state can now prohibit same sex marriage.

A friend raised a concern about the relationship of the decision to local land use regulations. The concern was that this case might lead to a general preemption of state and local laws designed to protect the environment, on the basis that the federal government has the right to overturn state and local laws on any topic. Is that what the Obergefell case means?

The short answer is that the constitutional principles upon which Obergefell is based are not a precedent for preempting and overturning state and local laws on other subjects. However, the Constitution does give the federal government the right to regulate "commerce,” and when the federal government acts, in an area in which it is entitled to legislate, federal laws are the "supreme” law of the land. We can celebrate Obergefell without any worry that it has any hidden negatives affecting land use. But concern about corporate domination of the federal government, and the use of federal laws to preempt local and state measures that protect the public health, safety, and welfare are right on target!

More Information:

• Land Use Links
• Gary Patton’s Two Worlds Blog
• Supreme Court Decision in Obergefell

Deciding upon the future development of Fort Ord is the single biggest planning challenge facing the people of Monterey County. At least, that’s my opinion. Certainly almost everyone will agree that what happens on Fort Ord is very important. Currently, an environmental review process is underway with respect to the proposed "Monterey Downs” development. The land proposed for this development is currently located in an area under the jurisdiction of the Monterey County Board of Supervisors, but the developers want to build their horse-themed residential development within the City of Seaside. Current City leaders seem quite enthusiastic, and the City of Seaside has assumed the role of "Lead Agency” for the required review under the California Environmental Quality Act.

After that review is complete, and before Seaside can take any final action to approve the "Monterey Downs” development, the Local Agency Formation Commission, or LAFCO, is going to have to agree that the land proposed for development can be annexed to Seaside. If it is, then the City Council could give final approval.

I urge Monterey County residents, including residents in Seaside, to get involved right now in this process. Listeners might also like to engage with the development of a set of Regional Urban Design Guidelines that the Fort Ord Reuse Authority is developing. There is more information at kusp.org/landuse.

More Information:

• Land Use Links
• Gary Patton’s Two Worlds Blog
• FORA Design Guidelines Questionnaire
• FORA Website on Regional Urban Design Guidelines
• FORA Website
• City of Seaside Website
• City of Seaside EIR Website
• Monterey Downs Website
• City of Seaside Presentation on Monterey Downs
• LandWatch Monterey County Letter on Monterey Downs EIR
• Keep Fort Ord Wild Website
• Monterey County LAFCO