KUSP LandWatch News
Week of December 14, 2009 to December 18, 2009

The decisions of local governments that regulate our lives are usually contained in their adopted “Codes,” and the agenda items I just mentioned relate to proposed changes in the Santa Cruz County Code, and specifically to sections of the Code relating to land use and planning. Agenda Item #49 is a proposed set of Code “clean up” measures. More significantly, Agenda Item #50 proposes changes to the rules that govern housing “affordability” in the County’s unincorporated urban areas. Again, it’s worth taking a look at these items. I’ve put links in the transcript of today’s Land Use Report.

For KUSP, this is Gary Patton.

More Information

Santa Cruz County Government Website
http://www.co.santa-cruz.ca.us/

December 15, 2009 Agenda
http://sccounty01.co.santa-cruz.ca.us/bds/Govstream/
ASP/Display/SCCB_AgendaDisplayWeb.asp?
MeetingDate=12/15/2009

Staff Report, Agenda Item #49
http://sccounty01.co.santa-cruz.ca.us/bds/Govstream/
BDSvData/non_legacy/agendas/2009/20091215/
PDF/049.pdf

Staff Report, Agenda Item #50
http://sccounty01.co.santa-cruz.ca.us/bds/Govstream/
BDSvData/non_legacy/agendas/2009/20091215
/PDF/050.pdf

As I mentioned yesterday, local governments have extensive “regulatory” powers. Our local elected officials are granted the right to “represent” us, and can decide, on our behalf, what sort of rules and regulations will best advance the public health, safety, and welfare. But the powers of local government go beyond the “regulatory” realm. Local governments also receive money from us, generated by taxes, or by fees or other charges, and our elected officials have the power to decide how to spend that money. Besides “regulating” us, in other words, local governments directly carry out projects on our behalf, and our elected officials decide what projects are good for us, and how to fund them, and how to implement them. There are lots of good reasons to pay attention to what your city or county government is doing!

Today, the Monterey County Board of Supervisors is considering spending some money on environmental review of what they have called the Granite Ridge Water Supply Project. Agenda Items #S-9 and #S-10 outline the project, which is intended to provide a new and more reliable water supply for North County residents who are finding that their water supply wells are going dry, because of groundwater overdraft. This means that the County government has allowed new developments to be built, in the past, when there really wasn’t enough water. The ultimate payment for this rescue project, if ever approved and constructed, will fall on those who get rescued.

For KUSP, this is Gary Patton.

More Information:

Monterey County Website
Monterey County Board of Supervisors Agenda
http://publicagendas.co.monterey.ca.us/

Monterey County Herald Article
http://www.montereyherald.com/local/
ci_13958624?nclick_check=1

Salinas Californian Article
http://www.thecalifornian.com/article/20091209/NEWS01/
912090312/1002/NEWS01/
Monterey-County-approves-subsidy-for-water-woes

What’s ahead for Carmel Valley, in terms of land use, now that the voters have decided not to incorporate and bring land use under the direct control of Carmel Valley residents?

The short and most accurate answer, of course, is that what happens in Carmel Valley in the future will continue to depend on what three members of the Board of Supervisors say will happen. No member of the Board currently lives in Carmel Valley, but the Valley does have one representative on the Board, Fifth District Supervisor Dave Potter. A review of past decision-making by the Board suggests that Carmel Valley residents would be wise to make friends with North County Supervisor Lou Calcagno, since it does take three votes to make a decision at the Board.

Supervisor Potter has a great record of supporting Carmel Valley in its concerns about over-development, and while she is relatively new on the Board, Second District Supervisor Jane Parker has shown herself to be sympathetic to Carmel Valley concerns, too. The two Board Members who represent Salinas and South Monterey County, Supervisors Fernando Armenta and Simon Salinas, haven’t been very sympathetic to Carmel Valley in the past, which then means that Supervisor Calcagno (or his successor, since Supervisor Calcagno is up for election next year) will probably be the key vote. Tomorrow, I’ll have a more specific suggestion on what concerned Carmel Valley residents might do.

For KUSP, this is Gary Patton.

More Information:

Monterey Herald Article
http://www.montereyherald.com/opinion/ci_13958640

If an area is in a city, it is said to be “incorporated.” That means that a municipal “corporation” (a city or town with a particular name) has governmental responsibilities for that area. If an area is not in a city, it is said to be “unincorporated.” All land use and other governmental decisions affecting unincorporated areas are made by the Board of Supervisors. Incorporating a city, in other words, means increasing “local control” over land use and other municipal affairs, and taking governmental responsibilities away from the Board of Supervisors.

In Santa Cruz County, familiar unincorporated areas include Live Oak, Soquel, Boulder Creek, and Aptos, just to name a few. Land use in those areas is under the control of the Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors. In Monterey County, unincorporated areas include Prunedale, Moss Landing, North Monterey County in general, Big Sur, the Highway 68 corridor, and Carmel Valley. Again, land use policy and project decisions in those areas are made by the Monterey County Board of Supervisors.

Some of the people who campaigned for the creation of a new Town of Carmel Valley are suggesting, after the failure of that effort, the creation of a “Municipal Advisory Council” for Carmel Valley, to try to provide a more local set of governmental representatives to respond to the concerns of Carmel Valley residents. I’ll have more on this idea tomorrow.

For KUSP, this is Gary Patton.

More Information

Monterey Herald Article
http://www.montereyherald.com/opinion/ci_13958640

Local government is rather “binary” in nature. A particular area is either “incorporated,” and thus governed by a locally-elected City Council, or it is “unincorporated,” and is governed by the County Board of Supervisors.

The California Government Code, however, allows a Board of Supervisors to bridge this “binary” gap, by creating a “Municipal Advisory Council” for any unincorporated area, to provide advice on matters relating to that area. The jurisdiction of a Municipal Advisory Council can include, but is not limited to, advice on matters of public health, safety, welfare, public works, and planning. Unless the Board specifically provides otherwise, a Municipal Advisory Council may represent the community before any state, county, city, special district or school district, agency or commission, or any other organization on any matter concerning the community.

The creation of a Municipal Advisory Council provides opportunities for increased local representation, while not displacing the ultimate authority of the Board of Supervisors. Although Carmel Valley residents determined that they didn’t want to create a new town of Carmel Valley, they might well respond favorably to the idea of a Municipal Advisory Council. And, while this idea is being pondered by County officials, why not think about a Municipal Advisory Council for the North Monterey County area, too?

For KUSP, this is Gary Patton.

More Information

Monterey Herald Article
http://www.montereyherald.com/opinion/ci_13958640

Government Code Section 31010
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate?
WAISdocID=64159427241+0+0+0&WAISaction=retrieve