The Monterey County Board of Supervisors is not scheduled to meet this week, but it did meet last week, as advertised, and considered a proposed shopping center at the intersection of Highway 68 and Corral de Tierra. I wasn’t there, but I have received “battlefield” reports from several who were, as well as reading the press accounts.

It is unclear to me whether the Board actually “turned down” the proposal in a definitive way, but the Board certainly did not “approve” the proposal that came before them. I think there is a reason for this result. While it probably wouldn’t be fair to characterize the Monterey County Board as relentlessly “pro-development,” the Board does approve most of the larger development proposals that come before it, and the Board has shown itself quite willing, on numerous occasions, to overrule the County Planning Commission, and to approve projects that the Planning Commission has recommended be denied.

The Planning Commission had recommended that the proposed Corral de Tierra shopping center be denied, and last week the Board agreed. The basic reason, I think, was incredible public involvement in the whole process. Frequent listeners will remember my ongoing advice: if we want self-government to work, we need to get involved ourselves. Hats off to all those who got involved in this case. From what I have read (and you can get links in today’s transcript), your continued attention and involvement is going to be needed!

More Information:

Gary Patton writes a daily blog, “Two Worlds / 365”
http://www.gapatton.net

Monterey County Herald article
http://www.montereyherald.com/local/
ci_17833798?nclick_check=1

Salinas Californian article, before the vote
http://www.thecalifornian.com/article/20110411/
NEWS01/104110313/Board-discuss-Corral-de-Tierra-
development-plan?odyssey=tab|topnews|text|FRONTPAGE

Times are tough for all sorts of governmental agencies. This is true from Washington, D.C., to the fifty states, and to all local government agencies, including those we know and love best, right here in the Monterey Bay Region. We live in the richest nation in the world, but our governments are going broke. This would seem to suggest that there is not a lot of commitment to government. Our problems may be collective, but we tend to think we can solve them with individual action, and that money spent on collective solutions is just so much money wasted. This discussion, of course, goes far beyond land use, but land use policy and project issues are distinctly implicated.

One manifestation of the phenomenon is a proposal now under consideration in Santa Cruz County; namely, should the Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation Commission be merged with the Santa Cruz Metropolitan Transit District? One agency runs busses. The other agency does transportation “planning,” and has no operational responsibilities or experience. And most of the planning done by the Commission is actually “highway” planning, not “transit” planning.

Good idea or not? The proposal is certainly consistent with the philosophical idea that every governmental agency that is eliminated is a step ahead. If you care, now is the time to get involved. The Transportation Commission will be discussing this idea on Thursday. There are links in today’s transcript.

More Information:

Gary Patton writes a daily blog, “Two Worlds / 365”
http://www.gapatton.net

Sentinel article on possible merger
http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/newsletter/ci_17862125

Santa Cruz Metropolitan Transit District Website
http://www.scmtd.com/en/agency-info

Regional Transportation Commission Website
http://www.sccrtc.org/

Agenda for April 21, 2011 meeting (with staff report)
http://www.sccrtc.org/packet/2011/1104/1104TPWPacket.pdf

The term "Habitat Conservation Plan," or HCP, makes it sound like an HCP is a pretty good thing. Maybe it is, but despite the name, it isn’t all about "conserving habitat."

Under the federal Endangered Species Act (and under the comparable California law) it is illegal to kill any individual member of an endangered species, unless you get a permit. The killing is called a "taking," but "taking," in this context, does mean "killing." And the killing can be done directly, as by firing an arrow through a California condor, or indirectly, by destroying the habitat upon which the endangered species depends.

If you are a developer, with development plans in any area where endangered plants or animals live, you have to get a “take” permit on a project-by-project basis. This certainly isn’t easy, and may not even be possible. Worst case, you spend time and money to ask for the “take” permit and then you get turned down. It’s fair to say that developers aren’t the largest fans of the Endangered Species Act.

From the point of view of members of the endangered species, or from the point of view of those who care about protecting endangered species, the system of requiring “take” permits for any proposal that will result in killing of any endangered species seems to be a pretty good idea. The system, though, is definitely not good news for the developers. Tomorrow, I will talk about how a "Habitat Conservation Plan" can help the developers out.

More Information:

Gary Patton writes a daily blog, “Two Worlds / 365”
http://www.gapatton.net

Federal Endangered Species Act
http://www.fws.gov/endangered/

California Endangered Species Act
http://www.dfg.ca.gov/habcon/cesa/

The federal and state Endangered Species Acts prohibit the “taking” of any endangered species. “Taking” means “killing,” and despite the general prohibition, both federal and state law contemplate the issuance of “take permits,” providing permission to kill endangered species on a case-by-case basis. Getting a “take permit” though, is definitely a “hassle,” and there aren’t any guarantees.

This is where the “Habitat Conservation Plan,” or HCP, comes in to help out developers. An HCP does aim to "conserve habitat," but only so the non-conserved areas can then be developed on a “blanket basis,” without any specific project level endangered species review. From the point of view of a member of the endangered species, society is saying, "I am sorry that you've got to go, but there is lots of habitat out there for the rest of your kind."

Unfortunately, an HCP cannot really guarantee that the habitat out there, supposedly "conserved," will actually be sufficient or appropriate for the species that is endangered. It is supposed to be, but if it turns out that it isn't, it's just too bad for the endangered species. The developers, though, do get a guarantee.

A link to a great illustration that dramatically shows just what an HCP actually means is found in the transcript of today’s Land Use Report. There are a number of HCP efforts now underway in the greater Central Coast Region. I encourage your involvement.

More Information:

Gary Patton writes a daily blog, “Two Worlds / 365”
http://www.gapatton.net

Great illustration from the Environmental Protection Information Center
http://www.wildcalifornia.org/blog/2704/

Federal Endangered Species Act
http://www.fws.gov/endangered/

California Endangered Species Act
http://www.dfg.ca.gov/habcon/cesa/

The great “desalination debate” held in Santa Cruz on Thursday, April 24th, was well attended, and I thought extremely informative. The League of Women Voters of Santa Cruz County deserves kudos for running what amounted to a flawless program. The debate, of course, focused on the plans of the City of Santa Cruz, and the Soquel Creek Water District, to build a new desalination plant, taking water out of the ocean, and then converting it by a reverse osmosis process into something we can drink and use to water our lawns.

The cost, if the project goes forward, will probably be upwards of $100 million dollars, based on what I heard at the debate. Whether we should be spending that kind of cash on a high-tech drought protection system, or whether we should invest, instead, in more conservation and a better sharing of regional water resources, was really the meat of the discussion. There are some arguments on both sides, all well displayed at the debate. Will the voters get to decide?

Speaking for the Santa Cruz City Council was former Council Member and Mayor Mike Rotkin. I thought his answer to a question about whether the voters should get to weigh in was revealing. In essence, he said that if the voters want to have their say, the voters will have to qualify their own referendum or initiative; no promises that the City Council itself, or the Soquel Creek Water District Board of Directors, will ask for the voters’ opinion. I’d say, start studying up!

More Information

Gary Patton writes a daily blog, “Two Worlds / 365”
http://www.gapatton.net

Sentinel article on desalination debate
http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/ci_17852776?
IADID=Search-www.santacruzsentinel.com-
www.santacruzsentinel.com

Desal Alternatives Website
http://desalalternatives.org/

City/Soquel Creek Desalination Website
http://www.scwd2desal.org/

League of Women Voters of Santa Cruz County Website
http://lwvscc.org/