This is in response to your "Open Letter to Brenda Cedarblade." I respect your right to communicate your perceptions, but would like to challenge a few.
Brenda's "lawsuit" is not against Clark Pacific. It is directed at the County government for not complying with the California Environmental Quality Act. Every citizen has the right to redress the actions of their government.
Radford's letter refers to Clark Pacific's project at the Spreckels Sugar Factory as the "reuse of an industrial site." The Spreckels site was zoned for agriculture. The supervisors changed the zoning to industrial. The site is in the middle of agriculturally zoned land. Considering the land uses around a project site is part of CEQA compliance. Had the supervisors recruited an agriculturally related processor, such as an olive or grape crushing facility, the Spreckels site could have been reused without changing the zoning and adoption of the Mitigated Negative Declaration would have been more near the target.
Radford asked, "Is your lawsuit going to improve anything?" The legal challenge to the County's non-compliance with CEQA is intended to encourage the County to comply with CEQA in the future.
Radford is concerned that Clark Pacific's reputation will be tarnished by the CEQA challenge. It is Yolo County's reputation that is tarnished when it changes agriculturally zoned land to industrial and approves a Mitigated Negative Declaration indicating a cement casting operation will not have significant environmental impacts.
Radford identifies himself as a member of Construction and General Laborers' Local 185. I am not unsympathetic to union issues. I come from a union family.
Is this what Woodland is in store for when Local 185 moves in?
CATHERINE PORTMAN, Woodland
