 |
Home | Issues & Actions | About |
Archive Page This page is available as an archive to previous versions of LandWatch websites. |
KUSP LandWatch
News
Week of November 23, 2009 to November 27, 2009
Week of November 23, 2009 to November 27, 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 November 23, 2009 to November 27, 2009
- Monday, November 23, 2009
The Unified Fee Schedule
- Tuesday, November 24, 2009
Cell Tower Aesthetics
- Wednesday, November 25, 2009
Water, Water (But Not Everywhere)
- Thursday, November 26, 2009
And Not A Drop To Drink
- Friday, November 27, 2009
LAFCO And Water
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, November 23, 2009 The Unified Fee Schedule |
 |
Tomorrow, the Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors is holding a public hearing to consider changes the County’s "Unified Fee Schedule." The Board will be taking up this item shortly after 9:00 o’clock in the morning, and if you are interested in testifying you should plan to be there right on the dot. This public hearing on the Unified Fee Schedule is the only item listed on the Board’s Regular Agenda. If you have any dealings with the County of Santa Cruz, and that includes dealings with the Planning Department, the Unified Fee Schedule affects you. Provisions of the California State Constitution and California State law limit the fees that the County can charge, by providing that a fee cannot collect more than the costs reasonably incurred by the County in providing the services for which the fee is collected. That limitation noted, a fee can be set at an amount that collects all such costs, and most Planning Department fees, in fact, are not fixed, but are set "at cost." Typically, that means very high fees for those wanting to carry out a building or development project. But high fees work on the other side, too. If you are a resident who wants to appeal a decision of the County Planning Commission to the Board of Supervisors, it appears that the fee for such an appeal is likely to be over $4,300. This does have a rather chilling effect on the ability of local residents to dispute planning and development decisions that they think are wrong. For KUSP, this is Gary Patton.
|
|
| Tuesday, November 24, 2009 Cell Tower Aesthetics |
|
Normally, local governments have control over local land use. You’d think, therefore, that every city should be able to decide where (or even if) cell tower placements would be allowed within the city. Cell tower installations can have public health effects, and there are certainly aesthetic impacts. Since land use regulations are routinely used to deal with public health and aesthetic concerns, it would seem logical to suppose that local governments would be able to use their land use powers to regulate cell tower placement. This is not so, however! Because the operational viability of a cellular network depends on maintaining connectivity between cell towers, local regulations on cell tower placement could potentially disrupt a cellular communications network. Accordingly, both the state government and the Federal Communications Commission have adopted laws and regulations severely constricting the ability of a local government to regulate cell towers. In an opinion handed down on October 14, 2009, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (which is a federal court), decided that California law does not prohibit cities and counties from denying approvals for proposed cell phone antennas in rights-of-way, based upon aesthetic concerns. Still, this power is limited and cannot be used effectively to prohibit the provision of personal wireless services. More information is available below. For KUSP, this is Gary Patton.
|
|
| Wednesday, November 25, 2009 Water, Water (But Not Everywhere) |
|
The University of California plans to cover almost 400 acres of the UCSC "North Campus" with over 3,000,000 square feet of new construction. Currently, the area involved is completely undeveloped. The University’s plan is to cut down the trees and turn this natural habitat into a densely developed urban environment. The University will not be able to carry out its development plans without getting access to water, and there isn’t any water service to this "North Campus" area now. Accordingly, the University has applied to the Santa Cruz County Local Agency Formation Commission (or LAFCO), to ask for what is called "extra-territorial" water service from the City of Santa Cruz. The City of Santa Cruz, by the way, has decided not to be "neutral" in this proceeding, but has filed its own application with LAFCO, to expand its Sphere of Influence. Approval of the City’s application is an absolute prerequisite to the extension of the water services that the University wants. So, in order to promote the University’s development plans, the City has become the "Lead Agency" for a combined City-University project. Since the proposal to develop the UCSC "North Campus" area might have significant environmental impacts, the City has been required, as the "Lead Agency" for the project before LAFCO, to produce a Draft Environmental Impact Report. You can get more information below. I’ll also talk more about the City’s project tomorrow. For KUSP, this is Gary Patton.
|
|
| Thursday, November 26, 2009 And Not A Drop To Drink |
|
Residents of the City of Santa Cruz, Live Oak, Pasatiempo, and parts of the City of Capitola (all of whom get their water from the City of Santa Cruz), have a big stake in whether or not the City of Santa Cruz will be permitted to expand its water services to provide water to the UCSC "North Campus" area. In fact, the residents of Bonny Doon, and anyone who would prefer a smaller rather than a larger UCSC campus, also have a big stake in that decision. As explained yesterday, the City of Santa Cruz has decided to become the "Lead Agency" to promote a joint City-University application to LAFCO, the Santa Cruz County Local Agency Formation Commission. The joint application seeks approval for an extension of City water services to the currently unserved "North Campus" area at UCSC. The new water service would facilitate the construction of over 3,000,000 square feet of new buildings. Because of the possible environmental impacts of a development at this scale, a full Environmental Impact Report, or EIR, has been required. The Draft EIR was just released by the City, and interested persons have until January 19th of next year to submit their comments. Tomorrow, I’ll talk more about this critical water policy matter, and will point out how recent events on the Monterey Peninsula might provide a "cautionary tale" for those dependent on the City of Santa Cruz for their water supply. For KUSP, this is Gary Patton.
|
|
| Friday, November 27, 2009 LAFCO And Water |
|
Last Friday, the Santa Cruz Sentinel quoted City Water Director Bill Kocher as saying, "in future years there is an inadequate water supply during times of drought." The Community Water Coalition, a local community group, has been pointing this out since February of this year, raising a question why the City should be the "Lead Agency" to help UCSC develop over 3,000,000 square feet of new buildings on 374 acres of existing natural habitat in the UCSC "North Campus" area and by doing so to place new demands on its limited water supplies when those water supplies are already insufficient in times of shortage. An article in last Friday’s Monterey County Herald underscores a reason to be concerned. On the Monterey Peninsula, the water supplier has been subject to a cutback order for some time, but has always hoped it could find a new source before dealing with the existing water supply deficiency. Time seems to have run out; a new supply has not been forthcoming, and residents are facing an immediate 20% further cutback in their current water use. The City of Santa Cruz is planning to develop a desalination plant as the answer to its lack of adequate water. Maybe that will happen, but it hasn’t happened yet. So does it make sense to increase water demands now? That’s a big question that LAFCO will need to address. 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 |
|