California Environmental Quality Act
The following is a message from Nancy Knight:
The conspiracy theory is bogus. The truth is that Warnie and I both support the voices of the people as does Richard Ostling. That is a threat to the powers that put Seyarto, van Haaster, and McAllister in office.
Warnie has a very different viewpoint and rationale for his decisions. I have analyzed the General Plan and know there is more to approvals than just the zoning aspect of Land Use. If more councilmembers would look for where the developer's projects failed in the stipulations of the other aspects of the General Plan we would not be in the situation we are today with traffic congestion. We have been failing the stipulation of the General Plan's Circulation Element for a long time but the voting block has continued to approve more houses and high density apartments and condominiums which only compounded the problem.
Staff has the ability to write a report that supports denial of a project just as easily as a negative declaration that supports a project. They proved that to me with the Meadowlane project on Adams. The initial study and negative declaration was so biased toward the developer it was easy to argue the project based on CEQA law. Even the developer finally admitted it was a bad study and had the city hire a new consultant to redo the initial study. The point is that staff had written a biased report even though the initial study was highly flawed. Who do you think they work for?
The Meadowlane project on Adams is 159 units by Horton Continental in the midst of estate residential housing that has been here for over 30 years. The public outcry convinced Youens (just before the November 2003 election) to vote with Enochs and Ostling and the project was denied. Staff turned their report around and gave their "findings" for denial. Van Haaster had other ideas and he knew he would get a second chance to approve the project if he got Youens convinced that he could negotiate money from the developer for a street improvement. The money was minimal of course and the developer's agreement left the burden to do the street improvements on the City. Van Haaster got his second chance at a vote and Youens was so misinformed he didn't even know what was happening but he flip-flopped his vote and the project was approved. Then in November van Haaster turned on Youens and did a major campaign to support McAllister.
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) is the protection that citizens have against overdevelopment. Unfortunately the city attorney and the council voting block refuse to cite CEQA law to deny projects. Instead the city attorney leaves us open to law suits because the hearings do not cite CEQA arguments in the administrative record (what they call the documents and testimony given at the public hearing). That is why the City attorney is always telling the council the developer will sue. If the city attorney was working for us he would give the council CEQA reasons for denial. Maybe our attorney does not know CEQA law well enough to protect us.
Warnie and Dick Ostling know a good project when they see one. Most these days are not good for the community and that is why they vote no. The people get emotional but they do not know how to argue a project in terms of CEQA law. That is what it takes together with a city attorney who can defend the citizens based on law rather than threaten the council that they will be sued.
I think that is what the developers are afraid of. Someone gets in there with CEQA case law to object to projects and they are finished here.
This Recall is not a power play by Warnie and Nancy, it is a power play by the people of the community who feel the impact of not following the General Plan.
- Nancy
The conspiracy theory is bogus. The truth is that Warnie and I both support the voices of the people as does Richard Ostling. That is a threat to the powers that put Seyarto, van Haaster, and McAllister in office.
Warnie has a very different viewpoint and rationale for his decisions. I have analyzed the General Plan and know there is more to approvals than just the zoning aspect of Land Use. If more councilmembers would look for where the developer's projects failed in the stipulations of the other aspects of the General Plan we would not be in the situation we are today with traffic congestion. We have been failing the stipulation of the General Plan's Circulation Element for a long time but the voting block has continued to approve more houses and high density apartments and condominiums which only compounded the problem.
Staff has the ability to write a report that supports denial of a project just as easily as a negative declaration that supports a project. They proved that to me with the Meadowlane project on Adams. The initial study and negative declaration was so biased toward the developer it was easy to argue the project based on CEQA law. Even the developer finally admitted it was a bad study and had the city hire a new consultant to redo the initial study. The point is that staff had written a biased report even though the initial study was highly flawed. Who do you think they work for?
The Meadowlane project on Adams is 159 units by Horton Continental in the midst of estate residential housing that has been here for over 30 years. The public outcry convinced Youens (just before the November 2003 election) to vote with Enochs and Ostling and the project was denied. Staff turned their report around and gave their "findings" for denial. Van Haaster had other ideas and he knew he would get a second chance to approve the project if he got Youens convinced that he could negotiate money from the developer for a street improvement. The money was minimal of course and the developer's agreement left the burden to do the street improvements on the City. Van Haaster got his second chance at a vote and Youens was so misinformed he didn't even know what was happening but he flip-flopped his vote and the project was approved. Then in November van Haaster turned on Youens and did a major campaign to support McAllister.
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) is the protection that citizens have against overdevelopment. Unfortunately the city attorney and the council voting block refuse to cite CEQA law to deny projects. Instead the city attorney leaves us open to law suits because the hearings do not cite CEQA arguments in the administrative record (what they call the documents and testimony given at the public hearing). That is why the City attorney is always telling the council the developer will sue. If the city attorney was working for us he would give the council CEQA reasons for denial. Maybe our attorney does not know CEQA law well enough to protect us.
Warnie and Dick Ostling know a good project when they see one. Most these days are not good for the community and that is why they vote no. The people get emotional but they do not know how to argue a project in terms of CEQA law. That is what it takes together with a city attorney who can defend the citizens based on law rather than threaten the council that they will be sued.
I think that is what the developers are afraid of. Someone gets in there with CEQA case law to object to projects and they are finished here.
This Recall is not a power play by Warnie and Nancy, it is a power play by the people of the community who feel the impact of not following the General Plan.
- Nancy
posted by J. L. Kunkle at
Wednesday, January 26, 2005
2 Comments:
This is an excerpt of the CEQA FAQs. You can read them all by clicking on the link in the title of this post.
"Significant effect on the environment means a substantial, or potentially substantial, adverse change in any of the physical conditions within the area affected by the project including land, air, water, minerals, flora, fauna, ambient noise, and objects of historic or aesthetic significance. The determination of whether a project may have a significant effect on the environment calls for careful judgment on the part of the lead agency involved, based to the extent possible on scientific and factual data. The lead agency shall consider direct physical changes in the environment and reasonably foreseeable indirect physical changes in the environment, which may be caused by the project."
By
J. L. Kunkle, at Wednesday, January 26, 2005 11:21:00 AM
There's more to Nancy's story. Even Ray Johnson, Esq. of URGE dropped a CEQA lawsuit Nancy was a part to. If there were legitimate CEQA issues Mr. Johnson would have proceeded if prevailing was a possibility. Nancy has alienated the other parties (her neighbors) of the suit. It would appear as though she's pursuing an agenda. Where & what are the specific violations she alledges? Why are there never any details, specifics and solutions offered by Ms. Night?
By
Anonymous, at Saturday, January 29, 2005 8:39:00 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home