|
MARCH 10, 2013 |
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
Agenda 21 and Local Government |
|
www.ShastaCoordination.com |
|
|
|
Today's guest:
Gary Cadd -
Redding City Council Member |
 |
|
GARY
CADD |
|
REDDING CITY COUNCILMAN |
Born in Willits and
raised in Ukiah, California, Gary Cadd attended local schools
and worked for the U.S. Postal Service and United Parcel Service
following graduation.
In 1977, Gary moved to Anchorage, Alaska, where he contracted
with multiple companies as an oil field technician on the North
Slope of Alaska. Any and all spare time was spent pursuing his
passion of fishing for King, Silver, and Red Salmon on the Kenai
River.
As a Legislative Aide for a member of the Alaskan Legislature,
Gary assisted in resolving constituent problems surrounding
state fisheries issues, fire training protocols, Child Support
Services, and Family Youth Services, as well as moving
legislation through the Alaska Legislature. He also held a
position as a sport fishing representative to the North Pacific
Fisheries Management Council's Advisory panel.
After residing in Alaska for 27 years, Gary moved to Redding
where he married his high school sweetheart. His interest in
local government prompted him to attend numerous meetings
including but not limited to those of the Redding City Council,
Shasta County Board of Supervisors, Shasta Local Agency
Formation Commission, and the Shasta Regional Transportation
Agency. He also held a position on the Redding Electric Utility
Billing Review Committee, the Redding Traffic Impact Fee
Committee, and the Redding Streets and Roads Work Group
Committee. In November 2012, Gary was successfully elected as a
council member for a four-year term on the Redding City Council.
|
|
|
|
Bay Area Regional Government plan:
ABAG
ABAG.pdf |
There is a crucial inter-relationship between land use,
infrastructure, pricing, technology, and individual behavior in
meeting the regional targets. While powerful, land-use changes alone
will not be sufficient in reducing our transportation - related
emissions. Reducing emissions from the transportation sector will
require new transportation infrastructure, like rail extensions,
more buses and even some freeway improvements. Reducing emissions
will also require
technological improvements to our cars so that they burn cleaner and
use less gasoline per mile. We will also need to implement pricing
measures - like parking fees, toll lane charges and bridge tolls -
so that more people become inspired
through their wallets to use their cars less. We will need a major
shift in personal behavior, where more people simply choose, for
whatever reason, to drive less, walk or take transit over driving.
If we seriously intend to reduce this regions transportation carbon
emissions, each of these strategies will be necessary.There is no
one solution. There will be no easy answers. And in all actuality,
land use, infrastructure, technology, pricing, and behavioral
changes are highly dependent on one another for any one measure to
succeed. For transit to succeed, sufficient densities need to be in
place. If driving becomes more expensive, then we need to have
affordable options available. If we want people to choose walking or
transit, we have to build our communities at a pedestrian scale and
have real transit options available. |
|
|
|
Climate Action Plans |
|
At the moment the Shasta Air Quality Management
District is working with the cities and the county
individually and will have four separate plans,
although that could change to one plan county-wide.
When completed, the four plans or one county-wide
plan, will be introduced to the governmental
entities for passage. If the Climate Action Plan is
passed by one of the government entities, it will be
incorporated into that government's General Plan. If
there is a conflict between the General Plan and the
Climate Action Plan, the General Plan must be
changed to conform with the Climate Action Plan. |
|
RCAPWorksheet
5-15-2011.pdf |
|
AECOM Proposal
Regional CAP for Shasta County.pdf |
|
AECOM Page37
5-12.pdf
(Yolo plan) |
|
|
|
Shasta Coordination
Document Library |
|
http://www.shastacoordination.com/docs/index.htm
|
|
|
|
What
if?
What If.pdf |
|
Projections 2009 Draft alternative growth
scenarios to 2035 |
|
|
|
Proposition 84 Guidelines
read pdf |
|
The IRWM Grant Program is
designed to encourage integrated regional strategies for management
of water resources and to provide funding for both planning and
implementation projects that support integrated water management.
These guidelines are intended to remain unchanged for the life of
the funding source. However, changes may be necessary due to
legislation or changes in State water management policy. If changes
are necessary, these guidelines will be amended and subject to a
public review process per California Water Code (CWC) §10541.
These guidelines are based
on guidelines used to disburse grant funding under the Water
Security, Clean Drinking Water, Coastal and Beach Protection Act of
2002, Proposition 50. The Proposition 50 IRWM guidelines have been
modified to be consistent with the following legislation:
- Public Resources
Code (PRC) §75026 et seq. (Proposition 84)
- Senate Bill (SB)
x2-1 (Perata, Statutes of 2008) CWC §10530 et seq. which
repealed and replace the Integrated Regional Water Planning Act
- Assembly Bill (AB)
739 (Laird, Chapter 610, Statutes of 2007) consultation with
State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and identification
of SWFM preferences
- SB 732 (Steinberg,
Chapter 729, Statutes of 2008) PRC §75100 and PRC §75102
requiring new grant solicitation for each funding cycle and
tribal notification
- SB 790 (Pavely,
Chapter 620, Statutes of 2009) stormwater resource planning as
part of IRWM planning
- AB 626 (Eng, Chapter
367, Statutes of 2009) the 10% of appropriated funds for DAC
projects should target distribution on a funding area basi
- CWC §525 water
meter installation as condition of receiving a water management
grant
- CWC §10610 Urban
Water Management Plans (UWMP)
- AB 1420 (Laird,
Chapter 628, Statutes of 2007) CWC §10631.5 implementation
of demand management measures as condition of receiving a water
management grant
- SBx7-6 (Steinberg,
Chapter 1, Statutes of 2009) groundwater elevation monitoring
as a condition of receiving a water management grant.
|
|
How does AB 32 "California
Cap and Trade" work? |
|
Let Warren Duffy show you: |
|
|
|
|
PLAY SHORT VERSION |
PLAY LONG VERSION |
|
|
|
|
NEWS in
other important matters |
|
The Great Global Warming Swindle
(Full Movie) |
|
|
|
The film, made by British television
producer Martin Durkin, presents scientists, economists,
politicians, writers, and others who dispute the
scientific consensus regarding anthropogenic global
warming.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Websites and
material mentioned on
today's program: |
|
www.ShastaCoordination.com |
|
www.aecom.com |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
INDEX OF RADIO
SHOWS |
|
SEARCH |
|
|
WE THE PEOPLE RADIO |
|
|
|
|
|
|
