Eye On Modesto

Thoughts and observations about Modesto and Stanislaus County

Archive for the tag “Stanislaus County California”

20 May 2013
1 Comment

Denny Jackman to Present Residential Urban Limit to Planning Commission

Tonight at 6:00 PM in the basement of 1010 10th St. Denny will be trying to get the Planning Commission to approve his RUL Measure for the Economic Development Committee in hopes of bringing it to the City Council in time to place it on the ballot in November.

 

The Chamber of Commerce has its own Pathway to Growth plan for Modesto.

 

The overreach on the Chambers plan is best appreciated when you place the two maps close together. Denny’s plan saves prime farmland and the Chamber’s uses it for planting driveways.

The thing to remember is every acre of prime farmland under production brings in $25,000 to Stanislaus County’s economy.  Homes cost us $3-5,000 per acre above and beyond the taxes they bring in.

 

 

Posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , ,
17 May 2013

A Letter to the StanCoG Policy Board

 

StanCOG Policy Board

Official seal of County of Stanislaus

Official seal of County of Stanislaus (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

1111 “I” Street, Suite 308

Modesto, CA

 

RE:  Public Comments on RHNA Low Income Housing Mandate, its process, formulas, and Sustainable City Plan under SB 375

 

 

Dear Policy Board Members,

 

It is very clear that StanCOG is the responsible agency for the ultimate design of this region’s “sustainable cities” as mandated by SB 375 – a vision that is NOT embraced by all California residents, usurps local government control over land use, violates residents’ private property rights under the CA Constitution, and is adding to our national debt.

 

Reducing greenhouse gases is a noble effort – but not an effort that should force what type of housing California residents chose to live in or how they believe is the best mode of transportation for them.  Not everyone will ride a bus, carpool, take BART or CalTrain to work or for personal pleasure.  Not everyone wants to live in “stack and pack” or “compact” housing.  If given choice, most people and families prefer to live in single family residences with space and privacy.  Not everyone is 20-30 years old with using up every minute of their personal time with socialization and going out.

 

SB 375 and HCD’ related housing element in which to force residents into close living quarters of “compact” housing as the “housing of the future” –  violates the very freedom of  “Choice” that are at the foundations and personal liberties of Californians and others in the United States, under constitutional protection.

 

The amount of 25,608 low income high density “compact” housing units being mandated by HCD and forced upon our County will cause several social and economic problems for Modesto and Stanislaus County.  To date, StanCOG is in violation of not properly informing the public that the “Valley Vision Plan” for our sustainable cities is based upon building this large amount of low income housing!  I have attended two organizational seminars put on by Valley Vision to the Farm Bureau and the City Council, and there was NO mention that this compact housing was filling the RHNA low income housing mandate.  StanCOG is guilty of misrepresentation of such housing to the public.  Therefore, all of the public presentations have mislead the public since there was never adequate explanation of the RHNA mandate as part of the sustainable city plan.

Accepting such high number of low income housing will only bring social problems to the City of Modesto and Stanislaus County as other counties will “transfer” their Section 8 recipients to Modesto – a more affordable area for subsidized funding and the transferor county will enjoy higher real estate taxed property (after they get rid of their excess low income residents.)  Being an “affordable” area attracts undesirable persons to our communities (bringing in more crime, social dependency which strains our hospitals, schools, housing, water, and utilities).  A city with a high degree of low income housing opportunities is not a city in which successful businesses want to relocate – no matter how much new commercial building is available.  Developers will always paint the rosiest and attractive picture of their grandeous projects.

 

Modesto and Stanislaus County struggles with a 22% increase in violent crime, a police force extremely inadequate to its population, hot temperatures which will require more water and electricity, a documented gang population of 5,000 members (the Bee had a full 3 page article on this matter), a higher proportion of convicted felons being transferred or released into our county – with an additional 1,000 expected by year’s end, and an unemployment rate of 20%.  Now tell me why do you think any mid size employer would want to bring their company and their best intellectual capital here?  Would these 30 year old’s ever want to leave the Bay Area?  The answer is clearly “NO.”

 

This self-appointed governing council does not have to take our cities and county down a road of subsidization – just to bring “dollars” into its coffers.  This is the easy way and not real city planning and strategy for everyone.

Many city councils and government departments are questioning HCD’s low income housing formulas because they do not want an oversupply of low income housing in their cities which will hurt economic opportunities, resident’s real estate values, and the social fabrics of their societies.  Several Bay Area cities are getting together to challenge HCD.

I encourage you to join this effort.  Be pro-active and talk with other councils.

 

Low income housing – now matter how modernized it appears to be, is nothing more than low income housing.  Housing does NOT bring economic growth to a city – it just brings more housing.  What is needed is REAL economic opportunities – and the right way to build  “sustainable cities” that offer “choice” for everyone – not just one income segment of society.   The foundation for economic prosperity is not a federal low income handout. It’s called “JOB CREATION”  – and I don’t mean temporary (construction) jobs.

 

 

 

Donna M. Minighini

Modesto resident

 

Encl:  2/22/13 Palo Alto online article about city council and others, rejecting HCDs numbers:

http://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/show_story.php?story_id=28701

 

A  Public Records Request

April 4, 2013 via US mail/with return
receipt
Housing Community Development
Attn: Ms. Angela Freitas, Housing Director
1010 10th Street
Modesto, CA
Housing Authority of the County of Stanislaus
1701 Robertson Road,
Modesto, CA 95352
RE: Requesting disclosure of all addresses of privately owned or county owned
existing and future “affordable” or “low income housing”, “section 8” housing, and
“special needs” housing, and those involving “Neighborhood Stabilization Program”
(NSP or NSP2), or other grant funds, in Stanislaus County.
Dear Ms. Freitas, (HCD), and Housing Authority of the County of Stanislaus,
Under the “California Public Records Act”, Section 6250, et al, the federal “Freedom of Information Act”, and government transparency compliance, I would like to have access to records, as well as obtaining your assistance in receiving the following information:
1. EXISTING HOUSING:
a. To date, provide information as to what is the total number of housing units (townhomes, condominiums, apartments, or single family homes, (or other residential buildings) located in Stanislaus County, currently being “rented to” and/or servicing low income, affordable housing, and housing for “special needs” persons (homeless, severe mentally ill, chronic abuse, veterans, persons with HIV/AIDS, domestic violence, unaccompanied youth, emancipated foster and transition age youth, elderly, developmentally disabled, alcohol/drug additions)?
b. Provide information as to the street addresses of these existing units?
(These property units would be either owned by private owners or any city or
county agency.)
c. Provide information as to how much in NSP or NSP2 funds has been spent to date
on all existing, newly built and “rehabbed” affordable, low income, or special
needs housing?
TO: Housing Community Development/Angela Freitas, and Housing Authority of the County of Stanislaus/April 4, 2013/ Page 2 of 2
Provide information as to project name, number of units, and street address.
Provide information as to who were payments made to, and how much was paid
out for each project?
2. FUTURE PROJECTS OR UNITS (for low income, affordable housing, or special needs persons):
a. Provide information as to how many “units” will be built?
b. Provide information as to what type of construction will units or project be? (SFRs, townhomes, mixed use, apartments, or other building type.)
c. Provide information as to what is project/s name/s?
d. Provide information as to what is street location of project/s?
e. Provide information as to when is construction going to begin?
f. Provide information as to who is the developer/s and/or Non-profit agency involved in project/s?
g. If NSP or NSP2 funds, or other funding sources are involved, provide source
of funding for each project.
h. Provide information as to how much in NSP, NSP2, or other grant funds, will be allocated and spent on such future unit/s or project, and paid to whom?
Thank you for contacting me at 209-522-5390 or by email at pttrs457@aol.com to obtain the information in this request.
Donna Minighini
Modesto resident

 

Posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , , , | Leave a comment
08 May 2013

Formula for the TIN CUP Limits…Divide by Six and then Double It

By Emerson Drake

Recently, an Ordinance change passed several committee hearings and is being sent to the City Council  requesting a

English: Author: Carl Skaggs This image was ta...

English: Author: Carl Skaggs This image was taken by me on January 14, 2010 in Modesto, California I hereby relinquish all rights to this photo. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

new, lower  level of $1,000 campaign donation limit or  TIN CUP for Council races.  In 2005 when the Council decided to raise the limit from $1,000 to $3,000 the council races were city wide. On November 7th of 2007 the voters of Modesto approved breaking Modesto into six council districts.

Since the $3,000 limit was thought more than sufficient for races encompassing the entire city, dividing the 3,000 by 6 would make $500 a reasonable limit. But the thinking was to double the amount to $1,000  and no reasonable person should have a problem.  But we’re talking about politicians who are already in office.  The higher amount of $3,000 obviously benefits incumbents who, it could be argued,  have more influence to offer donors than first time candidates. What should be crystal clear to everyone?  The lower the campaign donation limits, the less influence special interest groups have on our politicians.

It’s about leveling the playing field

The suggested changes don’t stop anyone from donating whatever amounts they choose.  The only stipulation would be that the elected officials  would have to recuse themselves (not be involved in conversations or voting) on any item brought forward by someone who donated more than $1000.   This should be satisfactory to everyone.   We’ve discussed the amounts raised by candidates  and detailed how even large amounts ($37,000 by Cogdill) can be raised without exceeding the $1,000 mark from any donor.

The influence Modesto politicians have on county politics is tremendous.  Modesto’s population equals all of the other cities in Stanislaus County combined.  We are, unfortunately, the city whose council is most likely to ignore the wishes of the people, as was demonstrated by the Council regarding Denny Jackman’s RUL proposal.  Councilman Lopez declared the 65,974 votes received by measures A-E against extending the sewer trunk lines were because of what he termed “voter fatigue” instead of the obvious message sent by voters against SPRAWL.

I encourage anyone, regardless of where you live, to express yourselves in emails to the Mayor and Council and in letters to the editor. Letters@modbee.com, mayor@modestogov.com,  jgunderson@modestogov.com, dgeer@modestogov.com, dlopez@modestogov.com,  jmuratore@modestogov.com,  sburnside@modestogov.com and dcogdill@modestogov.cov

Everyone CAN make a difference, all you have to do is try.  The following is just a suggestion.  Speak from your heart.

Subject line: Level the Playing Field

Body:  I support the lower TIN CUP levels that were recommended by the Committee.

Letters to the editor require your name, address, and phone number.

Posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment
07 May 2013

Is the Proposed WOODGLEN Project Right for Modesto?

May 6, 2013

ghost subdivision

ghost subdivision (Photo credit: reallyboring)May 6, 2013

City of Modesto Planning Commission
(Sandra Lucas, Ted Brandvoid, Patricia Gillum, Chris Tyler, Steve Carter, Dennis Smith,
Marshall Riddle)
1010 10th Street, Modesto, CA
RE: STUDY SESSION for “Woodglen” development by Fitzpatrick Homes;
Requiring annexation of 72 acres of County Agricultural land to build
353 single family homes, 180 units of multi-family housing.
Dear City of Modesto Planning Commission Members,
As a public resident who lives in the unincorporated area of Modesto, nearby the
proposed site of the project (Bangs/Carver/Pelandale/Tully Road), this project would
involve the conversion (destruction of) agricultural land for non-agricultural purposes is
quite large, and would definitely cause several negative impacts for the surrounding area
and the city overall.
Before you approve any such development to proceed further, or give the developer
approval to present such an annexation to LAFCO for consideration, I would ask that
answers to the following concerns should be provided to the public:
1. The residential building of 533 homes in one project, to be built in 2013/2014 while the
recession is still, and is expected to continue in force for the next 5 years (for our area),
which Modesto is effected by still a high 20% unemployment rate, with no promise of
employer/s migration to our area, this excessive residential project is an example of
“urban sprawl” that is not sustainable in the next year or two years, and will further cause
economic damage to existing property owner’s equity and property values.
2. The 683 page “EIR Draft Document” does NOT provide support or mitigation actions
to justify to go forward with this project.
The entire report must be read in its entirety by anyone making decisions on this project.
Some concerns in regards to the content of this document include:
Several “Potentially Significant” negative impacts if this large residential
development were approved. Some, but not all, citations include:
Destruction of AG Land
“the proposed project site has historically been used for agricultural purposes and
is currently cultivated alfalfa and almonds.” (Almond crops are one of Stanislaus
County’s top crop categories and directly responsible to maintaining our
economy.)
TO: Stanislaus County Planning Commission, May 6, 2013 public letter, RE: STUDY
SESSION for “Woodglen” development by Fitzpatrick Homes, Page 2 of 5.
Rebuttal: The AG Element of the General Plan’s main goals are to protect
agricultural land – our #1 industry.
Air Quality and Transportation
“Implementation of the proposed project would result in pollutant emissions being
released into the atmosphere.”
“Implementation of the proposed Woodglen Specific Plan project will exacerbate
existing conditions at one intersection operating below the City’s minimum LOS
D with the addition of projected traffic and result in levels of service dropping
from LOS C to LOS E at one additional intersection.”
“Significant and unavoidable” transportation negative impacts will result from:
“Implementation of the proposed Woodglen Specific Plan project would result in
an incremental increase in delay that exceeds the daily thresholds at intersections
where LOS D is already exceeded.”
“Implementation of the proposed Woodglen Specific Plan project would result in
level of service dropping to an unacceptable level on one roadway segment and an
increase in volume-to-capacity ratio above the incremental threshold on two
roadway segments under near-term conditions.”
Rebuttal: This residential project is TOO BIG for the proposed area, and will
cause air pollution from 533 OR MORE resident automobiles owned by residents
trying to navigate out of the neighborhood. Modesto’s air quality is already at a
serious and extreme levels (caused by automobile emissions).
The project will also cause significant negative traffic slowdowns, hurting
existing residents who normally travel on the major streets of Standiford, Bangs,
Tully, Synder, Carver, and Prescott – to get home, to work, or for other needs.
This project does not meet greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction mandates under SB
375. Road widening or additional road lanes encouraging more cars does not
reduce GHG.
Who would actually pay for any road widening or additional lanes? I hope
taxpayer money would not be spent, nor would transportation improvement grant
funds be spent.
Any transportation costs should be paid by the developer!
TO: Stanislaus County Planning Commission, May 6, 2013 public letter, RE: STUDY SESSION for “Woodglen” development by Fitzpatrick Homes, Page 3 of 5.
The further destruction of farmland would most likely be involved just to accommodate the multiple road improvements required. What other farmland owners will be personally harmed by any eminent domain land takeovers?
Excessive Noise and Dust
The construction period which would last for several months to a year, two years, ??? would cause harm to nearby residents and such dust would travel and pollute the air to a larger surrounding diameter where more residents live, causing unknown and possible serious (lung) health effects.
Water Quality
Of serious concern is, “Implementation of the proposed Woodglen Specific Plan would increase the amount of impervious surface on the project site and the amount of urban runoff. In addition, construction activity could contribute to short-term discharges of waste and accelerated soil erosion and siltation. These things could degrade surface water quality.”
Rebuttal: The protection of surface water quality is an important human and agricultural need. Contaminated water will reach crops in which humans consume. Contaminated water is known to cause serious health issues, which include cancer (means eventual death).
“Implementation of the proposed project would expose people and structures to future ground shaking. The presence of sandy soils and groundwater creates the potential for unstable soil conditions and liquefaction. Furthermore, construction on the project site could contribute to soil erosion.”
Rebuttal: No development, or one that may serve a city’s future plans, should ever jeopardize the personal or property safety, or economic protection of surrounding property of existing owners and residents. Ground shaking and liquefaction of the ground is a serious situation and can cause economic and personal harm to residents in an undetermined radius surrounding the site. This area’s sandy soil presents very sensitive construction issues. Unknown earth damage could extend well beyond the site and is not warranted to support this project’s size. (The entire community of nearby Del Rio could be affected as it is also built on sandy soil due to its location to the Stanislaus River). There are no “mitigation” measures that are justifiable or can prevent harm to residents.
“Implementation of the proposed project would increase demand for police services in association with new residential development.”
TO: Stanislaus County Planning Commission, May 6, 2013 public letter, RE: STUDY SESSION for “Woodglen” development by Fitzpatrick Homes, Page 4 of 5.
Rebuttal: The City of Modesto and Stanislaus County are severely underserved with providing Modesto’s 206,000+ residents with proper police protection at large. Only twelve (12) patrol officers to date are out on patrol at any given time in the entire city. (Quote from Police Chief Ballantine on March 4, 2013). Only six (6) county patrol officers to date are out providing police services in the unincorporated areas of Stanislaus County. (Quote from Mayor Marsh in a Modesto Bee article dated May 5, 2013).
Until there are significant increases in city and county police patrols offering police protection and services at large, this development cannot go forward, adding another 533 units (with 1000+ more persons) to protect. Previous, existing, and new general plan policies state that NO new developments will go forward until proper public services are available.
What is meant by “the project includes development of an “infrastructure financing plan” ? What is being developed, when, and by whom? How much money? How realistic is achieving this? Who pays what, who gets what?
3. How is this 533 residential home development consistent with the General Plan and Land Use and Zoning?
Is this large project accepted by StanCOG to meet it’s “future growth and development” of a “sustainable city” under SB 375?
4. Are any of these homes or multi-unit buildings going to satisfy RHNA affordable housing numbers under the 2009-2014 Revised Housing Element Update?
If so, how many units will be set aside?
5. Are any of these homes or units going to be purchased by HCD or other government agencies with NSP or Housing Block funds, offering either subsidized rental housing or property sales to low income persons? If so, how many homes and units?
6. With Modesto experiencing insufficient water resources to date for its residents and farmers, (a variety of problematic issues) – where will the water needs for this project’s residents come from? Which agency would provide water and from what sources?
Will this additional water need cause any rate increases or supply loss to existing residents of Modesto or Stanislaus County unincorporated residents?
Existing legislation does NOT allow any future growth until adequate public services (such as water) are available.
7. How will the City of Modesto Police Department or the Stanislaus County Sheriff’s Department provide sufficient police protection at large to an increased population of 533
TO: Stanislaus County Planning Commission, May 6, 2013 public letter, RE: STUDY SESSION for “Woodglen” development by Fitzpatrick Homes, Page 5 of 5.
homes (which reasonably amounts to at least 1000 total persons (2 per household or the project as a whole), when existing police protection is at very severe levels (12 officers on patrol for a population of 206,000 approximately, (city services) and 6 officers for the unincorporated town areas (population unknown)?
The City or County currently is NOT paying for reasonable levels of protection at large for Modesto or Stanislaus County!
Existing legislation does NOT allow any future growth until adequate public services (such as police protection) are available.
I urge you to NOT vote in approval of this huge residential project at this time, which has has NO realistic “sustainability” or “demand” in our area at this time, or in the near future. This excessive project will cause multiple issues of serious harm to existing land owners and existing residents. Mitigated proposals hurt residents and would cause cumulative negative impacts to the city’s residents. Proper public service levels do not exist to warrant the project to stain existing services to the public.
Sincerely,
D. Minighini
Modesto unincorporated resident
Encls:
City of Modesto “2012 crime statistics” presented to City Council Safety & Communities Committee/Council Workshop Meeting on March 4, 2013
http://www.modestogov.com/sirepub/mtgviewer.aspx?meetid=535&doctype=AGENDA
“Re-Alignment” Update web article, May 3, 2013, re: more releases into communities
http://news.yahoo.com/california-prison-crowding-plan-still-falls-short-213707352.html
The Woodglen EIR Report: http://www.modestogov.com/ced/pdf/planning/projects/woodglen/Woodglen%20SP%20DEIR_FINAL.pdf

 

Posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment
30 Apr 2013

Modesto Bee Heavily Biased in Water Discussion Says Vance Kennedy

By Vance Kennedy

The Chamber of Commerce and developers want to make the San Joaquin Valley another Santa Clara Valley.  It will be

California's San Joaquin Valley and Central Va...

California’s San Joaquin Valley and Central Valley. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

a food disaster for the nation.

MID Talk – The Modesto Bee is heavily biased in discussing the so-called subsidy of farmers by electric rate payers.  There has been extensive coverage of the subject.  There has been essentially no effort made to ask how the farmers are subsidizing the rate payers in return.  I have already mentioned the groundwater recharge that flood irrigating farmers do for the city’s benefit.  That has been largely ignored.  There are many other benefits that need to be emphasized, but have not been.  These include the cleansing of dust particles from the air by vegetation, which is known to occur, but has not been extensively studied in the community.  Another is the fact that agriculture is the main source of outside money for our economy.  The Bee would do well to look for the many pluses that farmers and the irrigation system bring to the Valley and give them equal coverage.

Subsidizing is not necessarily a dirty word.  The federal and state governments do it all the time, when they feel that it is best for the overall community.  The Modesto Bee is apparently pushing to greatly increase farmer’s water rates.  What will that do to the overall community?  I’m told that the dairy farmers are struggling to survive and that many of them across the state are going into bankruptcy.  In Stanislaus County, in the last two years, 61 dairies have gone bankrupt.  In 2 months, 10 dairies,  3 more now ready to go bankrupt.  20 more expected this year.  207 dairies have now gone bankrupt in Stanislaus County.

Water in large quantities is absolutely required to operate a dairy.  Has the Been inquired about the economic impact on the county of water rates were tripled, for example?  Could the job losses far exceed the subsidy that the Bee is so fond of emphasizing?  If it were a responsible organization, it would look into the effect of what they are pushing so hard.

Now, I don’t question that there is a real need to issue more long-term MID bonds while bond interest rates are at an all time low.  When the government prints lots of money, inflation is a usual result, delayed for a varying length of time.  With inflation, prices go up along with interest rates.  Such bonds have a guaranteed source of payoff and that means additional income will be needed.  City residents should realize that only a very small fraction of their water charges is due to the wholesale price of water that the city and the farmers pay.  By far, most of the water charge to city residents is due to treatment and distribution charges.  Even so, I think that the cost to city residents is on the order of 2/10ths of a penny per gallon.  That is guaranteed pure and available in large quantities at the touch of a faucet.  What a deal!  Half of that water is there now because farmers pushed for the Don Pedro dam many years ago.  It raises a familiar old question – “What have you done for me lately?”

Before we price many farmers out of business with water charges, lets have an independent group look at all of the factors that contribute to the community’s welfare.  Some farmers can easily pay considerably more for water.  Others will be wiped out.  What does the community want and what is reasonable for the long-term good of the city residents and businesses, who constitute the over-whelming users of electricity?  It is a very complicated question which must not be ignored.

In Stanislaus County in the last two years 61 dairies have gone bankrupt.     In the last two months 10 dairies went bankrupt, 3  more are on the brink, 20 more are expected this year.                                                                                                                                                                                                                              We have only 207 dairies left in the county.

Posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment
29 Apr 2013

Monday Night 6 PM “On Watch” with Special Guest Supervisor Jim DeMartini

I’m guest hosting Athens Abell’s cable TV show “On Watch”  and Supervisor Jim DeMartini will be my guest.  The show is

Cable tv

Cable tv (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

on KBSV-DT  Comcast channel  15 and can be found on any cable company in the Central Valley.

You can watch it on the internet at: http://www.betnahrain.org/KBSV/kbsv.htm it’s also on 89.5 FM

You’re welcome to send any questions you have to me here as comments to this article until 5 PM tonight.

Posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment
25 Apr 2013
1 Comment

Last Night’s Local Agency Formation Commission Meeting (LAFCO)

By Emerson Drake

Last night’s LAFCO was sparsely attended, short and bitter sweet.  All of the  Commission Members were in attendance.

English: This map shows the incorporated and u...

English: This map shows the incorporated and unincorporated areas in Stanislaus County, California, highlighting Modesto in red. It was created with a custom script with US Census Bureau data and modified with Inkscape. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

They started out by discussing the letter from the Modesto Chamber of Commerce where the Chamber “mistakenly” used the official Modesto logo.  The letter had blasted LAFCO for conducting interviews out of the public’s eye. The letter’s last paragraph complained about the direction LAFCO has been going in favor (Ag Mitigation) hence my  concern about the possible confusion of using Modesto’s official logo.  It’s the way LAFCO has been doing business for a long time and it’s similar to the way the City and County interview potential Committee members.  The Board as a whole Chairman O’Brien and Supervisor Jim DeMartini took exception to the Chambers expressed opinions.

Chairman Bill O’Brien and Vice Chair Amy Bublak met and interviewed the four finalists before the meeting started (okay technically they interviewed Brad Hawn by phone) and they were Ron Freitas, John Mier, Annabel Gammon, and Brad Hawn.  Commissioner Mayor Charlie Goeken made the nominations for both Public member and Alternate public member.  Successful candidates were required to receive a vote from both a city and a county member.

After each nomination a vote was taken.  Brad Hawn, former Modesto City Councilman and a member of the Chamber’s Board of Directors was chosen for public member and Annabel Gammon was chose as the alternate. Ms. Gammon’s vote was unanimous and  Commissioner DeMartini voted against Brad Hawn.

It was somewhat interesting to see Steve Madison builder, former BIA Director, and Chamber of Commerce member not only attending but speaking in support of the Chamber.  Sitting directly  behind me was  land use attorney and who is also sometimes portrayed as political kingmaker and Chamber campaign fund facilitator  George Petrulakis.  While George  and Steve were sitting separately,  they  left huddled in conversation together very soon after Brad Hawn who is also on the Modesto Chamber of Commerce’s Board of Directors nomination.

Did the letter have the desired effect and help Hawn get the position?  I couldn’t say.  But I do know the past practice with LAFCO is to take the alternate public member who has been observing and participating as necessary and bringing them onto the Board as the Public member. Ron Freitas would have been my first choice for the position of Public member but the public doesn’t get to vote and since he had already served a term as Alternate he wasn’t eligible for the position. The public and the candidates were given the opportunity to speak in behalf of themselves or any of the candidates but since Commissioner Goeken wasn’t part of the interviewing process and was the one making the nominations I don’t believe any input at that point would make a difference.

So does Brad Hawn being chosen place Ag Mitigation in jeopardy? I spoke to several of the Commission members after the meeting and they assured me changing their Ag mitigation policy was a long and arduous process and that particular conversation wasn’t even on the distant horizon.

Now the flip side.

We all know the Modesto Chamber of Commerce has been actively planning and has started using Modesto’s General Plan Amendment process to campaign to completely destroy not only Ag land preservation but also Ag Mitigation utilizing the current election cycle as a tool and that Steve Madison and George Petrulakis were there for a reason last night.

.Lobbyists, real estate agents, and home builders fill their action committees and with no direct concerted opposition mounted by the citizens of Modesto I’m afraid there are dark times ahead.

I’m looking forward to next Monday’s “On Watch With Athens Abell”  on local cable television KBSV 6:00 PM Comcast 15 also on streaming video.  I’ll be the guest hosting  and  talking with  Stanislaus County Board member and LAFCO Commissioner Jim DeMartini.

Now that’s one conversation  you won’t want to miss.

Posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , , , ,
22 Apr 2013

Government Meetings of Interest 4/22-4/28

Modesto:

A montage I (Valente Q.C.) made with pictures ...

A montage I (Valente Q.C.) made with pictures that I took for the Infobox in the Modesto, California Article. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Monday 4/22

City Council Agenda meeting 4:30 PM Room 2005

Finance Committee meeting 5:00 PM Room 2005

Tuesday 4/23

Modesto Irrigation District 9:00 Water Committee report

Board of Supervisors meeting  9:00 AM Board Chambers

Modesto City Council meeting 5:30 Council Chambers

Wednesday 4/24

Stanislaus LAFCO 6:00 PM Basement of 1010 10th

LAFCO will be selecting its members from the public. This an IMPORTANT MEETING lobbyists and developers will be attempting to sway the LAFCO members.

A major topic of the City Council meeting:

Denny Jackman’s Residential Urban Limits (RUL) Proposal is on the agenda

The Residential Urban Limit (RUL) for the City of Modesto is bound
on the north by Pelandale and Claratina Expressways east to Oakdale
Road; on the west by an extension of Morse Road; on the south by
Whitmore Avenue west of freeway 99, the Tuolumne River east of
freeway 99, and on the east as Church Street ending at Dry Creek.
This policy does not apply east of Oakdale Road north of Dry Creek.

As a side note:

The developer’s lobbyists will be out in full force trying to defeat Denny’s RUL proposal so those interested in preserving prime farmland might want to come and speak out.  It’s always interesting to put names and  faces together on those who believe short term profits for themselves is more important than ensuring good healthy locally grown produce for our families.

While RUL doesn’t effect  Salida’s annexation concerns, these same developers covet the proposed land grab from Salida that’s being called Kiernan Business Park West.

Posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment
13 Apr 2013

JPA Stanislaus Animal Services Agency Meeting

By Emerson Drake

We’ll file this under better late than never. This  should have written this several weeks ago.

Cat

Cat (Photo credit: @Doug88888)

The Animal Services Meetings are usually held quarterly and with the exception of the Governing Board members are,  like most government meetings, poorly attended by the public.  But that would be about the only downside to this meeting.  Executive Director Annette Patton  wanted to express the entire staffs heart-felt thanks for their exceptional volunteers for without them the JPA couldn’t begin to accomplish everything they do.  From processing and grooming to staffing the weekend Off Site Adoption  program where many animals are found home, these volunteers are what makes the Animal shelter function smoothly.  They have one volunteer who puts in 40 hours a week regularly.

A note of concern was voiced regarding people from the Alternative Work Program are missing more and more scheduled hours because they are realizing the Sheriff doesn’t have the necessary jail space to pull them back into custody or the people to follow-up.  So if you like animals and have some spare time on your hands they’d be happy to have more volunteers.

The Dog License Amnesty Program was an unqualified success  in January and was extended into February. They processed 7,145 licenses  and plan on repeating this program sometime next year. But don’t wait for amnesty,  keep your pet license up to date.

Adopt a Shelter Cat Month Program and Seniors for Seniors are two new  programs they are rolling out June, 1, through June, 30, 2013.  Kittens and cats can be adopted for just $15 compared to the normal $40 as the cats are neutered prior to adoption and the $40 just covers the cost of the operation.  The Seniors for Seniors is FREE and designed to help find older cats homes. The cats will be over five years of age and are traditionally harder to find homes. Presumably the seniors who adopt these mature cats will be a little older than five. .:)

The proposed County Model Ordinance to prevent cats from being abandoned after being trapped was delayed until the next meeting to work out some suggested language.  Several citizens requested a time limit cats MUST be turned in by in order to provide humane treatment after the cats are trapped. Also there was discussion from Stan Risen from Stanislaus County to keep the penalties at citation/ticket only level. Fortunately Deputy Chief Mike Borges of Ceres suggested a compromise allowing Police Officers the ability to use citations as a first line of control but to also have the ability to write misdemeanors.  I think that’s a good idea besides Stan Risen made a point of mentioning District Attorney Birgit Fladager has higher priority Misdemeanors to prosecute. But having the option should work well.  The vote was put off until the next meeting but things are still looking good for the ordinance.

The Proposed Budget for fiscal year 2013-2014 was accepted.  It’s truly amazing how much they can get done with only 30 paid staff members with some being scheduled 7 days a week.  It explains why staff makes a point of saying how important volunteers are.

 

 

 

Posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , , | Leave a comment
11 Apr 2013
1 Comment

Presented to at the Modesto Irrigation District April 9,2013

By Joan Rutschow

The over regulation of farmers by the State Water Resources Control Board will have a devasting effect on farmlands, agriculture income, and jobs.

The recent proposal by the WRCB to release 35% of the unimpaired flow on the Stanislaus, Merced, and Tuolumne Rivers

The department logo.

The department logo. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

will have the following estimated and unacceptable outcomes:

1. Fallowing as many as 220,000 acres of farmland.

2. Loss of $187 Million in ag income and using a 7x economic multiplier according to the Modesto Chamber of Commerce equates in their estimate to $1.3 Billion.  But it is MUCH WORSE:  220,000 acres of permanent  crops which is what will have to be abandoned.  An average 5,000 lbs. at $2.50  per lb. equals gross farm-gate value times the economic multiplier of 7x equals $87,000 of economic benefit to those ag communities.  Apply this to 220,000 acres and it is a very big economic hit of $19.2 Billion that we currently HAVE and will LOSE.

3. Unfortunately, the WRCB is willing to sacrifice our agricultural livelihood and destroy our entire community.  All for the purpose of providing striped bass with exorbitantly priced salmon for every meal.

I personally attended the Don Pedro re-licensing meeting at Modesto Irrigation Headquarters on January 30 and 31st, 2013.  We were told by the meeting attendees that 93% of the young salmon in the rivers were killed by PREDATORS – mainly large mouth bass!  HUMAN NEEDS MUST COME FIRST!  Farmers MUST be allowed adequate water to provide food and fiber as needed by our growing population.  With our present drier water pattern, water is more important than ever!  There is NO GUARANTEE that the proposed release of 35% of the unimpaired flow of the Stanislaus, Tuolumne and Merced Rivers would significantly save the salmon population, but would definitely GREATLY HARM FARMLANDS (FOOD PRODUCTION!), agriculture income and jobs!

Respectfully,

Joan Rutschow

Modesto Ca.

 

 

Posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , , , , , ,

Post Navigation

← Older Entries
Newer Entries →