 |
June
12, 2003
Mayor
John Huerta, Jr., and Council Members
c/o City Clerk, City of Greenfield
Greenfield City Hall
45 El Camino Real
Post Office Box 127
Greenfield, CA 93927
[Sent
By FAX: 831-674-3149]
RE:
Proposed Amendment to the Redevelopment Plan for the Greenfield
Redevelopment Project and the Proposed Negative Declaration Prepared
for the Amendment
(Written
Comments To Be Considered At Your Public Hearing on June 12, 2003)
Dear
Mayor Huerta and City Council Members:
This
letter is to follow up on our earlier letter of April 2, 2003, addressed
to your Planning Manager Mark McClain. By this reference, we hereby
include our comments made in that letter, and request that our earlier
letter, like this one, be made part of the administrative record.
We
continue to be greatly troubled by the proposal to amend the redevelopment
plan for the Greenfield redevelopment project by adding various
parcels of commercially productive agricultural land to the existing
redevelopment project area.
We
have the following comments at this time:
- We
believe, contrary to the Notice of Intent to Adopt a Negative
Declaration, that the proposed amendment to the Greenfield Redevelopment
Plan might have a significant negative impact on the environment,
and that a full Environmental Impact Report (EIR) must be prepared,
as required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
- The
proposed project is to include within the redevelopment project
area boundaries approximately 200 acres of agricultural land,
and to develop that land for residential and other purposes. Inclusion
of the land within the redevelopment project area boundaries will
facilitate and advance the proposed development, and the development,
if in fact undertaken, will undoubtedly have multiple impacts
on the physical environment, as well as cumulative and growth-inducing
impacts. Because inclusion of the land within the redevelopment
project area boundaries will contribute to and facilitate the
physical development of the land, this is a project for which
CEQA requires an EIR. Court cases make very clear that changes
in planning documents are projects that may have a significant
environmental impact, and when they may have such negative impacts,
an EIR is required.
- We
note that the proposed Negative Declaration and Initial Study
state that annexations to the City of the lands proposed to be
added to the redevelopment project area boundaries will have environmental
impacts, and that, in fact, it is contemplated that an EIR will
be prepared for those activities. If such an EIR were available,
that EIR might well be adequate to serve as the required EIR for
this project, but the use of a Negative Declaration is not appropriate.
- CEQA
requires that environmental analysis and review may not be deferred,
but should take place at the earliest possible time. If the City
prepares an EIR for some other action, it may well be able to
rely on that EIR for this proposed project. What it may not do,
legally, is to avoid environmental analysis now, saying “we’re
going to get to that later.” This is, in essence, what the
City seems to be proposing, and LandWatch believes that this violates
the requirements of CEQA.
-
In the May 9, 2003 Public Notice of an Intent to Adopt a Negative
Declaration, under the “Environmental Setting” section,
it is stated that the all of the proposed additions to the existing
redevelopment project area will be considered only after annexations
of the land to the city have been completed. We do not believe
that this has, in fact, been accomplished, and if it hasn’t,
the Council cannot properly proceed to consider an expansion of
the redevelopment project area now, consistent with the Public
Notice provided on May 9th.
- With
respect to the “merits” of the proposed annexations
of the City of Greenfield, and thus their ultimate eligibility
for inclusion in the City’s redevelopment project area, LandWatch
refers the Redevelopment Agency to the LandWatch report and analysis,
“Room Enough,” previously provided to the City, and
available on the LandWatch website at www.landwatch.org. The “Room
Enough” report demonstrates that there are feasible alternatives
to meeting the City’s need for future residential and other
development that do not require the annexations as proposed.
- LandWatch
strongly argues that some or all of the lands in question, whether
or not ultimately annexed to the City of Greenfield, are not “blighted”
within the meaning of the State’s Redevelopment Law, and
thus are not eligible for inclusion in the redevelopment project
area. We specifically refer the Council to the following provisions
of state law governing redevelopment (emphasis added), which we
believe indicate that the Council cannot, properly, take the action
that it is contemplating at the June 12, 2003 public hearing:
- Health
and Safety Code Section 33030(b)
A blighted area is one that contains both of the following:
(1) An area that is predominantly urbanized, as that
term is defined in Section 33320.1, and is an area in which
the combination of conditions set forth in Section 33031 is
so prevalent and so substantial that it causes a reduction of,
or lack of, proper utilization of the area to such an extent
that it constitutes a serious physical and economic burden
on the community which cannot reasonably be expected to be reversed
or alleviated by private enterprise or governmental action,
or both, without redevelopment.
Comment: We do not believe that the areas proposed to
be added are “urbanized,” and we believe, as to at
least a large percentage of the lands, that they are not an
“economic burden” on the community that require “redevelopment.”
In particular, we do not believe that commercially productive
agricultural lands are “blighted.”
- Health
and Safety Code Sections 33300 and 33302
Before any area is designated for redevelopment, the community
authorized to undertake such development shall comply with the
requirements of this article…[33302] The community shall
have a general plan which complies with Article 5 (commencing
with Section 65300) of Chapter 3 of Division 1 of Title 7 of
the Government Code….
Comment: We do not believe that Greenfield’s current
General Plan fully complies with the requirements of the State’s
Planning and Zoning Law.
- Health
and Safety Code Section 33320.1
(a) "Project area" means, except as provided in Section
33320.2, 33320.3, 33320.4, or 33492.3, a predominantly urbanized
area of a community which is a blighted area, the redevelopment
of which is necessary to effectuate the public purposes declared
in this part, and which is selected by the planning commission
pursuant to Section 33322.
(b) As used in this section, "predominantly urbanized"
means that not less than 80 percent of the land in the project
area:
(1) Has been or is developed for urban uses; or
(2) Is characterized by the condition described in paragraph
(4) of subdivision (a) of Section 33031; or
(3) Is an integral part of one or more areas developed for urban
uses which are surrounded or substantially surrounded by
parcels which have been or are developed for urban uses.
Comment: We do not believe that the areas proposed to
be added to the project area qualify under state law.
- Health
and Safety Code Section 33321.5
(a) Agricultural land and open-space land that is enforceably
restricted shall not be included within a project area.
(b) A parcel of land that is larger than two acres and is in
agricultural use, but that is not enforceably restricted, shall
not be included within a project area unless the agency makes
each of the following findings, based upon substantial evidence
in the record:
(1) The inclusion of the land in the project area is consistent
with the purposes of this part.
(2) The inclusion of the land in the project area will not cause
the removal of adjacent land, designated for agricultural use
in the community's general plan, from agricultural use.
(3) The inclusion of the land within the project area is consistent
with the community's general plan.
(4) The inclusion of the land in the project area will result
in a more contiguous pattern of development.
(5) There is no proximate land that is not in agricultural use,
that is both available and suitable for inclusion within the
project area, and is not already proposed to be within the project
area.
(c) As used in this section the following definitions apply:
(1) "Agricultural use" has the same meaning as that
term is defined in subdivision (b) of Section 51201 of the Government
Code.
(2) "Enforceably restricted" has the same meaning
as that term is defined in Sections 422 and 422.5 of the Revenue
and Taxation Code.
(3) "Suitable" has the same meaning as that term is
defined in subdivision (c) of Section 51282 of the Government
Code.
(d) The provisions of subdivision (b) shall not apply to the
territory described in Section 33320.8.
Comment: We do not believe that there is any substantial
evidence in the record before you that would allow you to make
the required findings.
In
conclusion, LandWatch believes that the proposed project is contrary
to both the state redevelopment law and the California Environmental
Quality Act. We urge the Council not to proceed to amend its redevelopment
project area without full compliance with CEQA and the state’s
redevelopment law.
Thank
you for taking our comments into consideration.
cc:
Members, LandWatch Board of Directors
Local Agency Formation Commission
Other interested persons
[Return
to
Greefield Issues and Actions]
posted
06.12.03
|
