 |
Home | Issues & Actions | About |
Archive Page This page is available as an archive to previous versions of LandWatch websites. |
KUSP LandWatch
News
Week of May 31, 2010 to June 4, 2010
Week of May 31, 2010 to June 4, 2010
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 May 31, 2010 to June 4, 2010
- Monday, May 31, 2010
Healthy Food In Watsonville
- Tuesday, June 1, 2010
Airport Land Use And Public Safety
- Wednesday, June 2, 2010
A Negative Declaration
- Thursday, June 3, 2010
Speaking Of CEQA
- Friday, June 4, 2010
The Watsonville General Plan
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, May 31, 2010 Healthy Food In Watsonville |
 |
|
The City of Watsonville Planning Commission is meeting tomorrow evening, and is going to hear a presentation on “healthy food options” for the City. I am not sure, exactly, what kind of presentation the Commission is going to hear, but Watsonville residents might want to attend the meeting tomorrow night, and find out. More and more communities are starting to appreciate the value of what used to be taken for granted in communities around the country, the presence of fresh foods, produced locally, in their markets and on their tables. Nowadays, that tends to be more the exception than the rule, but in the Pajaro Valley, it is obviously possible for local communities to provide healthy food options for community residents, by ensuring that productive agricultural lands are made available for local food production. In fact, Santa Cruz County could adopt an economic development strategy that features the production of healthy, local food for the “teeming masses” over the hill in the greater San Francisco Bay Area. You can see that a Santa Cruz County “label of origin” approach, certifying the healthiness of locally-grown, organic food, could get a lot of “market play” in the San Francisco Bay Area, where the “slow food” movement has momentum. And then, with local farmers’ markets inside our picturesque cities, Santa Cruz County could maximize “food tourism” opportunities, as another base of a local “healthy food” economy. For KUSP, this is Gary Patton.
|
|
| Tuesday, June 1, 2010 Airport Land Use And Public Safety |
|
This evening, the Monterey City Council will consider whether or not to override a recommendation of the Airport Land Use Commission, which has found that a proposal to locate a school facility at 601 East Franklin Street should be denied. The site proposed was previously the home of Tynan lumber. Under state law, the Monterey County Airport Land Use Commission makes advisory recommendations to municipalities that are considering developments within planning areas that could be affected by airports. The current planning document is the 1987 Comprehensive Land Use Plan. If the Airport Land Use Commission finds that a proposed project is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Land Use Plan, the project will be denied, unless the local agency overrules the Airport Land Use Commission by a two-thirds majority vote of its governing body. In connection with any override vote, the City Council must make specific findings that the proposed action is consistent with provisions in state law relating to airport safety. I’ve put references to the pertinent city documents below. The City Planning Staff recommends that the Airport Land Use Commission’s denial be overridden by the City, but the City Manager has a contrary view, indicating that the Airport Land Use Commission has expertise in aviation safety that the City Council should not ignore. For KUSP, this is Gary Patton.
|
|
| Wednesday, June 2, 2010 A Negative Declaration |
|
Today’s Land Use Report is aimed most directly at residents of the City of Santa Cruz, and maybe also at those who particularly love and treasure the Santa Cruz County North Coast. Recently, the Administrator of Environmental Quality of the City of Santa Cruz has indicated an intention to issue a “Negative Declaration” for a 51-unit self-storage facility, proposed to be located at 1225 Shaffer Road, on the western edge of the Santa Cruz City limits. A “Negative Declaration” indicates that no Environmental Impact Report, or EIR, will be prepared for the proposed project. Sometimes, a local government will issue what is called a “Mitigated Negative Declaration,” indicating that while a proposed project might otherwise have environmental impacts, the project has been redesigned to incorporate “mitigation” features that eliminate or reduce the potentially negative impacts to a level of insignificance. In this case, though, the City is saying that no mitigations are needed whatsoever. Recently, the City Council approved a new motel right in this area, so the City obviously believes that such developments, the first ones visible as a traveler comes into the City from Highway One, don’t detract from the City’s environment. If you’d like to make comments, you have until June 23rd. A public hearing is scheduled before the City Zoning Administrator on July 7th. For KUSP, this is Gary Patton.
|
|
| Thursday, June 3, 2010 Speaking Of CEQA |
|
Yesterday, I mentioned that the City of Santa Cruz is planning to issue a “Negative Declaration” for a proposed mini-storage facility, to be located at the western edge of the City. Unless comments submitted by the public convince the City to change its mind, the issuance of the “Negative Declaration” means that the City will neither prepare an Environmental Impact Report on the proposed project, nor impose any mitigation requirements. The environmental review of proposed projects, from small scale to large, is governed by CEQA, the California Environmental Quality Act. Most people have heard of CEQA, but I’m not sure that too many people have actually studied CEQA enough to understand exactly how it works. That’s too bad, since CEQA is the most powerful public participation tool available to ensure that governmental agencies respond to public concerns. Powerful development interests are always trying to avoid the application of CEQA at the local level, and to change or eliminate its requirements at the state level. Since CEQA is a state law, development interests have to get that state law changed to achieve their goal of a development process that takes place with minimal or no environmental review. Pending in the Legislature, right now, are a number of bills that would totally “gut” CEQA. I’ve placed references to lots of information about CEQA below. For KUSP, this is Gary Patton.
|
|
| Friday, June 4, 2010 The Watsonville General Plan |
|
As I reported a week or so ago, the City of Watsonville has rescinded its most recently-adopted General Plan, and will soon start preparing a revised General Plan. I’m revisiting this topic to encourage listeners to “scope out” the kind of issues that are likely to be important during the General Plan revision process. It’s my thought that there may well be some opportunities for Watsonville to do something pretty creative. While this is by no means a total list, I think that all of the following topics might well be involved in the kind of General Plan revision and update that the City of Watsonville will soon be starting:
As I say, this is only a “partial list,” but the fact that the City will soon have to redo its current General Plan is actually an opportunity for the City to take a new look at some of its previous presumptions, as the City seeks to achieve its continuing goals of providing good jobs and adequate housing, while not undermining the agricultural enterprises which are at the foundation of our local economy. 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 |
|