 |
Home | Issues & Actions | About |
Archive Page This page is available as an archive to previous versions of LandWatch websites. |
KUSP LandWatch
News
Week of February 21, 2011 to February 25, 2011
Week of February 21, 2011 to February 25, 2011
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 February 21, 2011 to February 25, 2011
- Monday, February 21, 2011
More Money For Desal?
- Tuesday, February 22, 2011
Mobilehome Rent Control In Watsonville
- Wednesday, February 23, 2011
Transportation Planning And The Public
- Thursday, February 24, 2011
Fighting Traffic Congestion
- Friday, February 25, 2011
Habitat Conservation Planning
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, February 21, 2011 More Money For Desal? |
 |
The City of Santa Cruz and the Soquel Creek Water District are planning to develop a desalination plant. The environmental impacts, and the costs, are both likely to be great. If you would like to express your own opinion, you will have an opportunity to do that tomorrow, at a meeting of the Santa Cruz City Council. Item #10 on the Council’s “Consent Agenda” is a proposal to amend the current contract that the City has with its desalination consultants, increasing the contract amount by $580,000, bringing the grand total of expenses under the contract to almost $1.5 million dollars. This does not include the cost of environmental review, which is additional. I’ve placed links to both the staff report and the actual contract amendment in the transcript of today’s Report. Critics believe that there are less costly and less environmentally damaging ways to address water supply issues. Since the City will soon be doing a complete new Urban Water Management Plan, critics say that the City should suspend further spending on desal, until after that longer range plan has been prepared, and has been subjected to public review, and then has been adopted by the Council. To speak to this item, you’ll have to be there at 3:00 o’clock tomorrow afternoon, and ask that the item be taken off the Consent Agenda. Otherwise, this expenditure will be approved without any discussion by the Council. For KUSP, this is Gary Patton.
|
|
| Tuesday, February 22, 2011 Mobilehome Rent Control In Watsonville |
|
Today, one of the most important items on the agenda of the Watsonville City Council isn’t really open for public discussion. At 5:30 this afternoon, the Council is scheduled to enter into a “closed session,” which means a Council meeting that the public is not allowed to attend. Normally, thanks to the Ralph M. Brown Act, the public is allowed to attend all meetings of the Council, but there are exceptions. The Brown Act allows local government officials to meet privately, to confer with their attorney. This does make some sense. Cities do get into lawsuits, and it wouldn’t be fair to let those suing the City have access to all the legal advice that the City officials are getting from their attorney. Thus, discussions between the City Council and their attorney can be held in a “closed session,” if current or proposed litigation is the topic. Still, having important discussions take place in “closed sessions” is frustrating. Tomorrow, the Council will discuss possible litigation challenging the City’s mobile home rent control ordinance. It’s hard to imagine anything of more importance to the City’s mobilehome residents. Will the Council decide to “fight” for mobilehome rent control, or will it “cave in” to the mobilehome park owners who want to end rent control? While you can’t be present for the deliberations, you can communicate with your Council Members in advance, and you can be there when the Council comes out of its “closed session,” to hear any report on Council action. For KUSP, this is Gary Patton.
|
|
| Wednesday, February 23, 2011 Transportation Planning And The Public |
|
The Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments, known as AMBAG to its friends, plays an important role in transportation planning. Thus, if you care about transportation issues, you might want to keep an eye on what AMBAG is doing, and you might even want to participate in the various transportation planning activities that occur at both the County and Regional level. By the way, have I mentioned recently that I encourage you to participate? Well, just suppose that you’d like to do that – to participate, I mean. AMBAG, working in conjunction with the transportation agencies of Santa Cruz, Monterey, and San Benito Counties, has plan for you! That’s literally true. On February 9th, AMBAG released a “Monterey Bay Area Public Participation Plan.” The draft plan describes the methods that local agencies will use to involve residents in decisions affecting transportation policies and investments. The Public Participation Plan was initially adopted by AMBAG in 2008, and federal legislation requires AMBAG to update the plan. The proposed revisions include public participation concepts for the Sustainable Communities Strategy required by California Senate Bill 375. Comments will be accepted up to and including March 30th. You can get a link to the draft plan, and more information, on the KUSP website. For KUSP, this is Gary Patton.
|
|
| Thursday, February 24, 2011 Fighting Traffic Congestion |
|
Yesterday, I was speaking about transportation planning. For many people, transportation planning comes down to one major issue: how do we fight traffic congestion? If you care about this issue (and most of us do, one way or the other) you may want to head out to a meeting being held this evening at the Middle School Gym, located at 4380 Carmel Valley Road. This is an outreach and education effort sponsored by the Carmel Valley Association, and promoted by LandWatch Monterey County. They have called the event a “Community Traffic Forum,“ and the official title is: “Fighting Traffic Congestion: What Can We Do?” The Traffic Forum is scheduled this evening from 7:00 to 8:30 p.m. Admission is free, and you are most cordially invited to attend. Speaking will be Julie Engell, land use activist; Dr. Tim Sanders, a physicist and a former planning advisor in Los Angeles, and Chris Fitz, a consultant who previously served as the Executive Director of LandWatch, and currently serves as a Board Member for LandWatch. While the event is obviously focused on a “hot topic” for Carmel Valley residents, everyone is welcome. I’ve put more information in the transcript of today’s Land Use Report. Without knowing exactly what the presenters will say tonight, there are some good suggestions in a LandWatch publication called Land Use And The General Plan. Free downloads are available on the LandWatch website. For KUSP, this is Gary Patton.
|
|
| Friday, February 25, 2011 Habitat Conservation Planning |
|
According to a recent article in the Morgan Hill Times, farmers, ranchers, and landowners have all expressed concerns about a proposed Santa Clara Valley Habitat Conservation Plan, or HCP. The proposed HCP is supposed to provide a framework for promoting the protection and recovery of endangered species, while streamlining the permitting process. The concerns documented in the article relate to the cost of the HCP to developers and landowners, and indicate that there is concern about whether the proposed HCP will actually facilitate development. Not featured were any comments by environmentalists. Frankly, if the environmental community isn’t involved, they ought to get involved at the earliest possible time. While the name of an HCP has a very “environmental” ring to it (a “plan” for “habitat conservation” must be environmental, right?), the actual idea of an HCP is to eliminate the need to protect endangered species as specific development projects are approved. Absent an HCP, no project can legally be approved if it would result in the “take” of an endangered species. With an HCP in place, projects can kill endangered species without any limitation, since the HCP is supposed to have protected the species at a “higher level.” Sounds good in theory. In practice, maybe not so much. 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 |
|