1 / 8

Watsonville Pilots Association VS City of Watsonville

Watsonville Pilots Association VS City of Watsonville. 2003: The City of Watsonville General Plan Update begun 2005: City adopted modified Watsonville Airport Master Plan: Declared runway 8 a low activity runway per California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook

philip-kidd
Télécharger la présentation

Watsonville Pilots Association VS City of Watsonville

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Watsonville Pilots AssociationVSCity of Watsonville

  2. 2003: The City of Watsonville General Plan Update begun • 2005: City adopted modified Watsonville Airport Master Plan: • Declared runway 8 a low activity runway per California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook • Eliminated Handbook Zone 3 • Eliminated Handbook Zone 6 use restrictions

  3. 2006: City certified General Plan update Final Environmental Impact Report • General Plan update included the Buena Vista project: 2250 residential units north west and immediately adjacent to Watsonville Municipal Airport

  4. 2006: Watsonville Pilots Association, Friends of Buena Vista, and Sierra Club filed suit against the City and CALTRANS alleging: • City failed to comply with the State Aeronautics Act • City violated the California Environmental Quality Act • City failed to adequately address airport safety concerns, traffic impacts, and water supply • City did not adequately analyze project alternatives

  5. 2008: Trial Court entered judgment in favor of WPA, Friends, Sierra on all counts except water supply analysis • Directed City to set aside its certification of the FEIR • Directed City to set aside its approval of the 2030 General Plan • Directed City to set aside its 2005 resolution amending the Airport Master Plan

  6. Key Findings Regarding the Handbook and Airport Land Use Commissions: • Court divided ALUC status into three categories: • ALUC Counties (standard ALUC per 21670-21679) • Alternate-Procedure Counties (counties with approved alternate procedures) • No-Procedure Counties (counties with no ALUC or approved alternate procedures)

  7. Court found it to be the intent of the Legislature that: • ALUC counties have discretion in applying the Handbook to land use planning • Alternate-Procedure counties have limited discretion in applying the Handbook to land use planning • No-Procedure counties have no discretion in applying the Handbook to land use planning; they must use the Handbook as written

  8. The Court found the City, located in a No-Procedure county, violated the State Aeronautics Act by its 2005 action to modify the Handbook in applying it to the Airport Master Plan Amendment and subsequent planning of the Buena Vista project. 2008: City appealed the Trial Court judgment 2010: Appellate Court affirmed the Trial Court judgment

More Related