 |
Home | Issues & Actions | About |
Archive Page This page is available as an archive to previous versions of LandWatch websites. |
KUSP LandWatch
News
Week of June 8, 2009 to June 12, 2009
Week of June 8, 2009 to June 12, 2009
KUSP provided a brief Land Use Report on KUSP Radio from January 2003 to May 2016. Archives of past transcripts are available here.
Week of June 8, 2009 to June 12, 2009
- Monday, June 8, 2009
A Big Day Tomorrow
- Tuesday, June 9, 2009
Settling With The Seaside Company?
- Wednesday, June 10, 2009
GPU-5 Workshop Today
- Thursday, June 11, 2009
The Pajaro River Watershed Council
- Friday, June 12, 2009
Oil Leases on Federal Lands
The following Land Use Reports have been presented on KUSP Radio by Gary A. Patton. The Wittwer & Parkin law firm is located in Santa Cruz, California, and practices environmental and governmental law. As part of its practice, the law firm files litigation and takes other action on behalf of its clients, which are typically private individuals, governmental agencies, environmental organizations, or community groups. Whenever the Land Use Report comments on an issue with which the Wittwer & Parkin law firm is involved on behalf of a client, Mr. Patton will make this relationship clear, as part of his commentary. Mr. Patton’s comments do not represent the views of Wittwer & Parkin, LLP, KUSP Radio, nor of any of its sponsors.
| Monday, June 8, 2009 A Big Day Tomorrow |
 |
The Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors has a big day tomorrow. During its morning session, the Board will consider an Environmental Impact Report and a proposed “Specific Plan” for the Atkinson Lane area adjacent to the City of Watsonville. The proposal is to pave over prime agricultural land for a major new residential expansion of the City. County policies are directly in conflict with this proposal, but it is the County Board of Supervisors, not the City Council, that is being asked to advance this idea. In the afternoon, the Board will confront another controversial item, a proposal for major development on the so-called “Poor Clare’s” property. The Board’s action here would be taken without the benefit of an Environmental Impact Report, on the basis that the development would have no significant adverse environmental impacts, if conditioned as proposed by County staff. This claim, somewhat controversial, to put it mildly, is contested by hundreds of neighbors living in the area. Both of these proposed land use planning matters are coming to the Board as part of a strategy to implement the County’s conditionally approved Housing Element. The Board believes that it has to take action by June 30th, so time is tight to do it right. If you are affected by either of these proposals, you can get the information you need to participate by using the links found below. For KUSP, this is Gary Patton.
|
|
| Tuesday, June 9, 2009 Settling With The Seaside Company? |
|
Today, the Santa Cruz City Council has scheduled the public discussion of an important lawsuit involving the City. As you probably know, local governments often discuss legal issues in “closed litigation sessions,” and the public has no idea of what is being discussed. The litigation exception to the general rule under the Brown Act, that all governmental meetings are open and public, is to provide local governments with the equivalent of an “attorney-client” privilege. If you, personally, are discussing legal strategy with your private attorney, you obviously don’t want the other side in the litigation to know what your attorney is advising you, or what you’ve told your attorney. Without an exception to the open meeting requirements of the Brown Act, a City Council or Board of Supervisors would never be able to have such confidential discussions. In essence, the settlements proposed to the City Council would end the legal challenges that have claimed that the Seaside Company (operators of the Beach Boardwalk) are actually claiming lands as their own that belong to the public. The City would concede on these claims, reflecting a Superior Court judgment that went against the City. In other words, there would be no appeal of this judgment. The Seaside Company would provide some money to the City, and quitclaim some land on which the City already has recreational easement rights. You can get copies of materials being considered by the Council on the City’s website. For KUSP, this is Gary Patton.
|
|
| Wednesday, June 10, 2009 GPU-5 Workshop Today |
|
The Monterey County Planning Commission is meeting today, and two items will shine a spotlight on the proposed “Update” of the Monterey County General Plan. Frequent listeners will remember that the current Monterey County General Plan was adopted in 1982, or twenty-seven years ago. About ten years ago, the State Attorney General wrote to the Board, informing them that the integrity of the County General Plan was subject to legal challenge, because the General Plan was arguably outdated. Nothing has changed on that score, ten years later, though millions of dollars have been spent on successive “Update” attempts. The current “Update” version is called GPU-5, since it’s the fifth time around for Monterey County. This doesn’t count the “Community General Plan,” developed by a whole list of local organizations, a version of which was presented to the voters as an initiative. At some point, Monterey County does need to “make up its mind” on the General Plan. Right now, they’re still in the “discussion stage.” If you’d like to take part in that discussion, Agenda Item #4 before the Planning Commission is a workshop on the proposed Open Space, Public Services, and Agriculture Elements of the “Update,” and on a proposed Winery Corridor Plan. Agenda Item #5 is a discussion of a schedule and topic selection for further discussion before the Planning Commission. For KUSP, this is Gary Patton.
|
|
| Thursday, June 11, 2009 The Pajaro River Watershed Council |
|
The Pajaro River divides Monterey County from Santa Cruz County, and Central Coast residents tend to think of it as a “local” river, not unlike the San Lorenzo River in the north part of Santa Cruz County, which is located pretty much entirely within Santa Cruz County. In fact, however, the Pajaro River isn’t “local.” The headwaters of the Pajaro River are in San Benito County, and the river runs through both San Benito County and Santa Clara County as it heads to Monterey Bay. The “regional” nature of the Pajaro River creates a big problem for both Monterey and Santa Cruz County. Flooding along the Pajaro affects both of these counties, including farmlands and urban areas in the City of Watsonville and in the unincorporated community of Pajaro, just across the river from Watsonville. A main cause of the flooding affecting Santa Cruz and Monterey Counties is the rapid urban development that has occurred and that is occurring in Santa Clara and San Benito Counties. They don’t have the flooding problems, and are not very inclined to pay for solutions that could protect properties on the Santa Cruz and Monterey County side of the mountains. A Pajaro River Watershed Council, involving representatives from all of the counties, is attempting to find a solution to the problem. The Council meets this afternoon, at 1:30, in Watsonville, and you are very much invited to attend. There’s more information below. For KUSP, this is Gary Patton.
|
|
| Friday, June 12, 2009 Oil Leases on Federal Lands |
|
Have you noticed, at this time of climate crisis, how both the federal and state governments are seriously working to advance new proposals for oil drilling? I thought we were supposed to fight global warming by reducing the burning of hydrocarbons as quickly as possible. Maybe that’s a simplistic approach. A lot of effort seems to be going into extracting more hydrocarbons, in the name of economic development, or “oil security.” Governor (fighting global warming is my middle name) Schwarzenegger is leading the pack. He says that one of the solutions to our budget crisis is more offshore oil drilling off Santa Barbara County. The State Lands Commission and Lieutenant Governor John Garamendi are fighting back, but this idea is being given serious attention in Sacramento. At the federal level, the Obama Administration is not ruling out more offshore oil production, and neither are Congressional leaders. In view of the fact that increasing the use of hydrocarbon fuels is putting the health of the planet in danger, and that almost everyone in the world knows this, the credence given to proposals for more oil drilling demonstrate the political power of the oil industry. Here’s the local angle: the federal government is actively trying to increase oil production on lands in south Monterey County, by offering new oil production leases on federal property. You can get more information below. For KUSP, this is Gary Patton.
|
|
Archives of past transcripts are available here
|
CONTACT 306 Capitol Street #101 PO Box 1876 Phone (831) 759-2824 Fax (831) 759-2825 |
|