 |
Home | Issues & Actions | About |
Archive Page This page is available as an archive to previous versions of LandWatch websites. |
KUSP LandWatch
News
November 21, 2011 to November 25, 2011
November 21, 2011 to November 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.
November 21, 2011 to November 25, 2011
- Getting Ready To Spend Some Bucks
Monday, November 21, 2011
- Water And The Council
Tuesday, November 22, 2011
- Lots To Be Thankful For
Wednesday, November 23, 2011
- Don’t Feel Guilty About “Opposing” Development
Thursday, November 24, 2011
- Reforming The Permit Process
Friday, November 25, 2011
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.
| Getting Ready To Spend Some Bucks Monday, November 21, 2011 |
 |
Item #13 on tomorrow’s agenda of the Santa Cruz City Council proposes spending over $480,000 on a contract for a “Permitting Advisor” for the proposed desalination plant. While there is no doubt that the City staff strongly urges the construction of such a plant, the City Council has not, officially, “made up its mind.” And the Council will tell you that, if you come to their meetings and raise questions about desalination. They are in a “study mode” at the moment. Specifically, the Council has commissioned the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report, to evaluate the desalination proposal. Studying something before you decide to do it, of course, is elemental good sense. It is also a legal requirement. The California Environmental Quality Act, or CEQA requires a full-scale environmental review of the proposed project before a decision is made. So, if the decision to proceed with desalination hasn’t been made yet, as good sense, the law, and the Council’s own statements attest, then why is the Council thinking about spending almost half a million dollars on a “Permitting Advisor?” Surely, you only work on the permits after (and not before) you’ve officially decided to do a project. Don’t you? If that’s a question you might have in your mind, you can pose it directly to the City Council tomorrow afternoon at 3:00 o’clock.
|
|
| Water And The Council Tuesday, November 22, 2011 |
|
Today, the Santa Cruz City Council will decide whether or not to spend $480,000 on a “Permitting Advisor” for the proposed desalination plant. That’s Agenda Item #13. Moving to “permitting” before having made an official decision to build the plant might seem a bit “cart before the horse.” I assume someone will raise that issue. Agenda Item #14 proposes spending an additional $100,000 on a law firm to work on the desalination EIR. If you’d like to be heard, your testimony (not to exceed two minutes) will be in order during the Council’s 3:00 o’clock afternoon session. Also on the agenda at 3:00 o’clock is a proposal to facilitate the development of the UCSC North Campus Area, giving the go-ahead to over 3,000,000 square feet of new construction in what is now a natural area. The Council would be helping the proposal along by suggesting (though not actually adopting) a policy on water conservation. That’s Agenda Item #18. At 7:00 o’clock, the Council will consider a proposed Urban Water Management Plan. The law firm with which I am associated has a direct interest in Item #18, because it represents the Community Water Coalition, which is opposing the extension of water service to the UCSC North Campus. I am hoping lots of people are interested in all of these issues, though. They are certainly important ones. For KUSP, this is Gary Patton.
|
|
| Lots To Be Thankful For Wednesday, November 23, 2011 |
|
Tomorrow is Thanksgiving. Because it is, my thoughts have turned to one of my favorite songs, Gracias a la Vida. If you are not familiar with the song, you might check my Two Worlds blog tomorrow. You can get a link from the transcript of today’s Report, on the new and improved KUSP website. Just click the “Archives/Podcasts” link at the very top of the KUSP home page. One thing I’m thankful for this week is the wonderful good sense of the Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors in rejecting a proposal from the County Planning Director to weaken the County’s land use policies in the Coastal Zone. That item was on last week’s agenda, and I did reference the item in the Land Use Report last Tuesday. As it turned out, one of the partners in the law firm with which I am associated actually appeared before the Board. The local newspaper reported the item as if it were a “project” item, affecting the “Poor Clares” property in Aptos. Properly speaking, though, what the Board was deciding was an important issue of land use “policy,” namely whether the Board should give itself “flexibility” to change its policy priorities on a “project by project basis.” After a good bit of thoughtful discussion, the Board unanimously voted to retain its current rules, which have been in existence since 1994 (when I was on the Board, incidentally), and which do make coastal protection a top priority. Actually, we all might be grateful for that. For KUSP, this is Gary Patton.
|
|
| Don’t Feel Guilty About “Opposing” Development Thursday, November 24, 2011 |
|
For most of us, “development” issues present themselves when a particular project is about ready to be constructed. That’s when we find out about the project, and that’s when we get interested. If we get interested, it’s often because we don’t like one or more things about the proposed development. Thus, community involvement in land use issues tends to be “oppositional” in character. Groups spring up to “save” something, or to “oppose” something. The developers, and sometimes even elected officials, criticize the community opponents for their “late-breaking” opposition. Sometimes, the opponents themselves feel guilty, and blame themselves for having to be so “negative,” and for having gotten involved in the process so late. My advice, for what it’s worth: Don’t feel guilty about “opposing” development. Our system of land use decision-making encourages landowners and developers to spend months or even years behind the scenes, working with local government planning staff, fine tuning their proposals. The public at large often doesn’t find out about the proposed project until the notices are published and posted for that first public hearing. The public has every right to be involved, and if a proposed project has problems, no member of the public should be reluctant to speak out against it, or to organize opposition. We all have the right to be heard on the future of our community. Tomorrow, I will have a more “positive” suggestion about how to deal with land use issues. For KUSP, this is Gary Patton.
|
|
| Reforming The Permit Process Friday, November 25, 2011 |
|
What sometimes appears to be “late-breaking” opposition to proposed development projects can be frustrating to landowners and developers. It can be frustrating to local planning staff and public officials, too. Yet, our permit approval system is really set up to provide an opportunity for public participation (at least at the project level) only very late in the process. The permit system could be reformed to require development proposals to be presented to the public much earlier than they now are. If you’d like to read an article on how this might work, check out the chapter on “Permit Process Reform” in Land Use And The General Plan, a small booklet published by LandWatch Monterey County. I’ve put a link in the transcript of today’s Land Use Report. There are a couple of other ways that members of the public can make sure that their participation in land use decision-making is more “positive” and less “negative.” First, they can participate at the “policy” level, not just at the “project” level. Properly drafted land use policies will eliminate the possibility of poorly conceived projects. Of course, those policies do have to be good, and they can’t be fuzzy. Second, members of the public who care about land use should get involved in “infrastructure” decisions. I will have more about that, with a Monterey County example, next week. 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 |
|