Biz Interests in State Trying to gut CEQA laws

Shocking, shameful and not at all surprising, biz interests are trying to once again gut the 40 year old California Environmental Quality Act which subjects developments to environmental review.  This in the light of all we know about global warming, loss of habitat, including our important fisheries, loss of water quality, pollution of all sorts.  Oh, but don't hinder the swift approval of industries trhat may might and could provide jobs.  Jusst say job creation and everybody is supposed to genuflect.

Not so fast, a group of Cal. legislators is working overtime to stop this ill-conceived notion in its tracks.  Here is the article from today's Chronicle.  My comment to all this: Make the proposed changes to CEQA themselves have to go through a CEQA review.  It's what the law was designed for.

And note Jerry Brown's pandering remarks: "I never met a CEQA exemption I didn't like," and "CEQA reform is the Lord's work." 

California environmental law faces changes

Wyatt Buchanan

Updated 11:00 p.m., Wednesday, August 22, 2012

0
inShare

Sacramento --
A proposal to loosen California's landmark environmental protection law is expected to be introduced at the Capitol as soon as Thursday, giving the public and lawmakers only about a week to debate and consider the controversial legislation's fate.
Backers of the proposal, largely from the business community, say the California Environmental Quality Act passed in 1970 needs to be updated because it has become cumbersome, and some individuals and groups misuse the law to stop or delay development for non-environmental reasons.
Republicans in the Legislature have long sought changes to the environmental law, commonly known as CEQA, and this year some Democrats, including Gov. Jerry Brown, signaled that they are open to discussion.
At a news conference last month, the governor said, "I've never seen a CEQA exemption I didn't like." And on Wednesday in San Francisco at a news conference for his ballot measure to raise taxes, Brown said of the proposal that has been circulating: "To tell you the truth, I have not read it. In fact it's not even clear we have a final draft yet. But look - CEQA reform is the Lord's work."
Environmental groups say the proposal is an attempt to gut the law in the waning days of the legislative session to avoid public input and scrutiny. The Legislature's two-year session comes to a close Aug. 31.
Typically, it takes at least several months - often longer - for a proposal to be vetted by committees and then go to a vote of the Legislature. But nearing the end of a session, controversial proposals sometimes are inserted into bills and pushed through.
While the bill has yet to be introduced, people both for and against it expect language that would alter the environmental law to be inserted into SB317 by state Sen. Michael Rubio, D-Bakersfield. That bill pertains to fish management in the Kings River, and amendments to the bill with the new language were released by proponents late Wednesday.

An influential law

CEQA is the cornerstone of California's environmental protection efforts. It was signed into law by then-Gov. Ronald Reagan, and has been a model for other states and even for some changes in federal law. Under the law, a project that will have a significant effect on the environment is subject to an environmental impact report.
Members of the public can comment on that report, and government agencies preparing the report must respond to those comments. Once the impacts are identified - they can range from traffic congestion to public health problems and damage to the environment - the developers must take steps to mitigate those impacts.
Perhaps more than any other, the law is responsible for how communities across California look today.

Eliminating reviews

Business leaders called the law an important tool that provides the public with an assessment of the environmental impacts of projects, but said it needs revisions.
"Since CEQA became law, many other environmental and land-use laws have been passed by multiple agencies at the federal, state and local levels, creating duplicative and overlapping processes, standards and mitigation requirements which often result in lengthy project-permitting delays and uncertainty," said Bill Allen, CEO of the Los Angeles County Economic Development Corp., in a letter to lawmakers supporting the proposal.
Under the proposal, projects that meet the requirements of an existing land-use plan - which has met CEQA mandates - would be exempt from going through the law's rigorous environmental review process. Backers say that eliminates duplication, but opponents say it means the public will not have a chance to weigh in on - and force changes to - large projects that will affect them or the environment, including power plants and hazardous waste dumps.
Exemptions from CEQA may also apply to two of the governor's biggest priorities: high-speed rail and the proposed tunnels to move water under the delta, environmentalists said.
"It would be really devastating for California and probably the rest of the nation for the kind of precedent this would set," said Jena Price, legislative director for the Planning and Conservation League.

Previous measures

She said attempts to alter the environmental law frequently emerge at the end of the legislative session, but previous measures have not gone as far as the current proposal.
"This is one of the more, if not the most, egregious attempts to gut CEQA I have ever seen," Price said.
Other environmental groups, including the Sierra Club, already have called on their members to contact leaders of the Legislature to block action on the measure even before it's an actual bill. Business groups, too, have asked members to call lawmakers, but to urge them to make changes in the law. Variations of the proposal for exemptions have been passed around the Capitol for more than a week. On Monday, a coalition of business groups, developers and some labor unions held a press conference to outline what they would like to see in a proposal.
Their ideas are reflected in the amendments.
But environmentalists are pushing back, and on Tuesday a group of 33 lawmakers sent a letter to the Democratic leaders of the Legislature calling for no changes to CEQA without first going through the full public process.

What is CEQA?

The California Environmental Quality Act, passed in 1970, is the cornerstone of California's environmental protection policies. A public agency must determine whether a proposed project would have a significant environmental impact. If so, the project becomes the subject of an environmental impact report, on which the public can comment. Those comments must be addressed, and the report must include ways to mitigate impacts on the environment.

Wyatt Buchanan is a San Francisco Chronicle staff writer. E-mail: wbuchanan@sfchronicle.com

Comments:  

 

greendogdemo

8:39 AM on August 23, 2012

Most shocking that Gov. Brown "never saw a CEQA exemption [he] didn't like." Of course he never saw a 3 Strikes law he didn't like either. Oh, Jerry, we really want to like you.

   

Delete

hepstein

7:06 AM on August 23, 2012

WOW!! This is the second time this week I agree with Gov. Brown. CEQA desperately needs to be reformed or rescinded. The out of control CARB should be disbanded.

   

sffoghorn

6:47 AM on August 23, 2012

If a Republican governor proposed this, the Democrats would oppose it vigorously. This is why Obama is poised to lose in November, because priorities that Democrats run on are end up worse when the Democrats are in office. This law was signed by Ronald fricken Reagan for chrissake, and now a Democrat is gutting it. How far have we descended into the corrupt pit of corporate dominance!

jenniferp

6:46 AM on August 23, 2012

"California environmental law faces changes"? Bad headline (not the reporter's fault). Nothing in this story shows that a majority in the Legislature is likely to approve this change to CEQA. If there is likely to be majority support in the Legislature for this change, let's hear about it, please. Otherwise a headline like: "Legislature to consider last-minute proposal to weaken California environmental law" would be more appropriate.

   

HollyBliss

6:40 AM on August 23, 2012

"The business community" meaning "billionaires and those that profit from collecting interest from the those that buy what's built."

This smells like an attempt to grab more northern California water for a certain senator's biggest contributor.

   

hexaprotodon

6:37 AM on August 23, 2012

If anything, California's environmental protection laws (and enforcement) should be strengthened.

   

nico415

6:34 AM on August 23, 2012

One word: REAGAN
How dare conservatives question the Almighty? What's next...will they raise taxes to hire teachers???

helpmeout

10:32 PM on August 22, 2012

Just imagine what developers will get away with once CEQA is watered down...SF waterfront beware, here come 8 Washington's ugly sisters

   

frenchjr25

8:07 PM on August 22, 2012

CEQUA also deals with historic preservation. The delays do get a bit ridiculous but at the same time developers need to start using more common sense when designing projects. Why tear down a historic building when there are plenty of empty lots already? Why cut down century old trees when buildings can be built around them?

Do you Need to Dispute your Tree Issue with a Neutral Expert?

Reminding our Subscribers of our specialized services
 

       Tree Dispute Mediation

Green Legal Solutions, the law office of Dotty LeMieux, now offers Mediation of Tree and Vegetation disputes in cases involving these issues:

• Trees vs. views - Tree damage/neighbor vs. neighbor - Nuisance - Trees gone “bad”   Injury - Property damage - Wildland fire

Neutral expert consulting arborist/urban forester/fire ecologist Ray Moritz helps evaluate the issue from a scientific and technical viewpoint for all parties or works with your expert for collaborative result
Experienced in hundreds of cases as an expert witness for
Individuals, Insurance companies, agencies and homeowner groups

Dotty E. LeMieux, attorney at law Green Legal Solutions
8 Willow St. San Rafael CA 94901 415-485-1040 Fax: 415-485-1044 coastlaw@earthlink.net  "Like" us on Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/pages/Tree-Dispute-Mediation-a-service-of-Green-Legal-Solutions/134208029947107

Tree Dispute Mediation, a service of Green Legal Solutions

Experienced litigator and consulting arborist provide consultation on tough questions of tree and neighbor dispute, cases of tree vs. car, pedestrian, property. Try mediation first or when you hit that wall.

 

Dangerous Dogs and Irresponsible Owners

This question was posed on an attorney site I use. It comes up a lot and allowed me to vent about one of my favorite topics: Dogs and their irresponsible owners. Here is the question and answer:

I have 3 acres of land, and two Rottweilers, what happens if somebody trespasses and gets attacked?

The entire property has a 4' high fence around it with numerous signs warning of dangerous dogs, but sometimes people or other dogs enter my property. Dogs are licensed, current on shots and on my insurance plan. What would happen if somebody entered my property and was attacked?

What if it was a minor who hopped my fence and was mauled? What kind of liability, if any, would I face? 

Answer: 

You would be responsible. You may even have created an "attractive nuisance," depending what is on your land.  But the fact that people and dogs regularly use shows it is attractive, at least for a short cut.  A 4 foot fence will not contain the dogs or keep others out as you know. You are on notice that this is the case, so you have no excuse, especially since you seem to know the dogs are dangerous.

Not only will you liable, but you may lose your dogs or at least have them declared dangerous and have to confine them, which you should do anyway.  Better yet, retrain them to be companion animals, not attack beasts and get an alarm for your property.  Certainly raise the fence. (Check with local zoning for the allowable height.)

Dogs deserve better than running loose all day on 3 acres where they can get into trouble. 

To my Readers: What's the "rest of the story?"

So many of you write with questions I try to answer within the Blog post you wrote about. (Easements are far and away the most popular), but I never hear what the outcome of your story was. Did it work out? Did you need a lawyer? Did it not work out?  Please let me know what happens next. 

I'd like to know if the advice and suggestions you see in this blog are helpful to your particular situations, so please keep me posted.

And thanks for reading Land Use News!

Judge orders San Rafael woman to return land to city, pay fine

Why you should do your homework before buying property

By Jessica Bernstein-Wax Marin Independent Journal

Posted:   06/12/2012 05:38:27 PM PDT

Click photo to enlarge

A judge has ordered a San Rafael woman to remove a portion of her yard that encroaches on city open space within 30 days and pay a $30,000 penalty.

Judge Roy Chernus' decision, issued Monday, is the latest development in the years-long dispute over an illegal backyard at 81 McNear Drive in East San Rafael. In 2006, Marion Hill and her family bought the 9,803-square-foot house for $4.2 million.
"While it is clear to the court that Ms. Hill purchased the property with the encroachment in place, it is also clear that she has chosen to maintain the encroachment long after it became clear that the City would not agree to allow her to do so," Chernus wrote in his decision.
Chernus ordered Hill to return about

a half-acre of land to the city and remove a shed "as soon as possible" but no later than 30 days after the judgment.The court's decision comes after a one-day trial on April 17.
San Rafael initiated the lawsuit after Hill failed to remove the encroachment after the City Council rejected her application for an exception in May 2009, City Attorney Rob Epstein said.
Hill has said she was unaware of the encroachment when she bought the property. In 2009 Hill told city officials she wanted to work out a land swap, but neighbors and activists fought against the effort, saying it set a bad precedent, complicated enjoyment of the public land and raised issues surrounding wildlife, fire, flood and landslide risk.
Built in
1987, the property has a history of encroachment dating to 1989, when a lot line adjustment was required to legalize the house's swimming pool.Sometime between 1989 and 2000, landscaping, fencing, irrigation, rock walls and a storage shed appeared in the open space, "all of which encroached much more significantly," according to the city.
San Rafael officials first flagged the problem in the backyard in 2000 after a neighbor complained. The city hired a surveyor, confirmed the encroachment of about 22,250 square feet of city land and issued an abatement letter, which went unheeded.
The matter didn't reemerge until March 2007, when the city received a report of illegal tree trimming in the open space at 81 McNear Drive and rediscovered the long-standing violation.
"The Court clearly recognized the seriousness of the violation when it awarded a substantial penalty against the defendant because of her private encroachment in the public open space," Epstein said in an email Tuesday. "Much private property in San Rafael — including hundreds of residential properties — is adjacent to our public open space. We will continue to do our best to ensure the public's access to open space."
Epstein noted that the $30,000 penalty would go to the city's general fund.
Hill and her attorney, Scott Phillips, couldn't be reached for comment Tuesday. Hill is involved in a second lawsuit with the home's previous owners alleging breach of contract. A hearing is scheduled for Wednesday in that case.

PG & E - Up to their old Tricks? Or Looking out for you and me?

PG and E wants to cut down acres of trees in Sonoma, along their utility line route. Just looking out for the public health and safety (in line with their previous stellar track record)? or looking out for the bottom line and hoping not to get sued, yet again. At least they are holding a meeting this time...

After years of trimming, this is a new policy.  What do you think?

  

PG&E to hold meeting on big Sonoma County tree-cutting plan

 http://www.pressdemocrat.com/article/20120327/ARTICLES/1http://www.pressdemocrat.com/article/20120327/ARTICLES/120329564&tc=email_newsletter?p=all&tc=pgall

By KERRY BENEFIELD
THE PRESS DEMOCRAT

Published: Tuesday, March 27, 2012 at 7:41 p.m.

Last Modified: Tuesday, March 27, 2012 at 7:41 p.m.

PG&E officials will host a community meeting Thursday to address concerns from landowners that a revamped maintenance plan will mean cutting down thousands of trees in a 39-mile stretch of high voltage lines through Sonoma County.

Facts

PG&E tree-cutting plan

A community meeting to discuss PG&E’s plans to cut thousands of trees under high-voltage power lines across Sonoma County will be held from 4 p.m. to 6 p.m. Thursday at the Bennett Valley Fire Department, 6161 Bennett Valley Rd.

The plan has come under criticism in recent weeks as landowners have discovered in some cases hundreds of trees marked with tell-tale blue paint that PG&E said means the trees are targeted not for pruning, but removal.

PG&E officials said the move is spurred in part by federal regulations that have increased penalties for outages and other incidents. But homeowners called for a meeting to hear why a decades-old strategy of pruning and select removal is seemingly being abandoned.

“PG&E has not really been open and not really been honest, I think, about the plans,” said Tom Birdsall, who has owned 41 acres on Sonoma Mountain Road for the past decade.

In that time, PG&E has successfully pruned growth on his property three or four times without issue, Birdsall said.

“It’s our belief that the trimming of trees for 50 years has worked just fine,” he said.

The 39-mile path stretches from The Geysers to Petaluma. A 2003 blackout blamed on trees that cut power to 50 million people in the Northeast put new focus on hazards that vegetation can pose to the nation’s power supply.

In 2007, under a federal mandate, North American Electric Reliability Corp., an organization of the nation’s electrical grid operators, came up with more robust standards for utilities.

A focus of Thursday’s meeting is to reach “a mutually acceptable way of providing safety and reliability,” PG&E spokeswoman Brandi Ehlers said.

“As a company, PG&E shares the same appreciation of trees as our customers,” she said. “Right now we are really focusing on reaching out to our customers.”

Some annual work must be complete by the start of the fire season which typically begins around May 15, while the remaining work is expected to be finished by year’s end, Ehlers said.

Assemblyman Michael Allen, D-Santa Rosa, who owns property in Oakmont where high-power lines stretch across the sky, has introduced AB2556 that he says will prevent PG&E from having “carte blanche” to clearcut trees.

“Initially they said they were doing this in response to federal legislation, but federal legislation did not say you had to clear cut,” he said.

“They don’t need a black eye on this either,” he said. “We are trying to do this cooperatively.”

Know your Boundaries

I get so many questions on boundary issues, relating to trees, easements, fences and other neighbor disputes, I have to say, "Homeowners, do you  know where your property's boundary lines are?"  

If not, you could have a problem. You need to find out where your property ends and the next property begins, now, before you get into a dispute with your neighbor.  As unlikely as you may think that is to happen, it happens all too frequently.  Take these simple steps and understand your property lines now:

1. Survey your property.  For this you need a licensed land surveyor (caveat, I am talking about California law, but I believe most, if not all, states require some kind of licensing protocol for land surveyors) who can draw up a survey to be recorded in your County or future reference. Keep a copy for yourself.

The surveyor will also set boundary markers, so that you can see the property borders at a glance.  These are usually metal pipes or similar markers.  Caution:  malicious neighbors have been known to move or destroy markers. That's why the recorded survey is essential.

2. Check with the County to see if a survey is on file already.  Then check your property's markers to see if they are in the right place.  If a dispute arises, you may need to back up any claim and having some knowledge ahead of time will save money in the long run. 

3. Check your neighbor's property in the recorder's office too, to make sure his survey doesn't conflict with yours. Yes, this happens, even with recorded survey.  

4. Do not rely on the parcel map filed when your subdivision was created. These show only the placement of the lots in relation to each other and the surrounding parcels, and are not reliable for determining where the actual boundary lines are on the ground.

5. Stay on good terms with your neighbors.  Friendly relations do not guarantee there will be no future disputes, but they can go a long way to minimizing animosity and long drawn out legal battles.  If a dispute arises, suggest mediation, with a neutral surveyor hired by both parties to help solve the issue, and a professional land use mediator to help you work out differences.

Good luck in staying out of court and on good terms with your neighbors.  A nice talk over the back fence can work wonders for good neighbor relations. 

New Tool in Fighting Foreclosure Fraud and the Banks that Commit it

Story about what one courageous Registrar of Deeds is doing to fight back on behalf of the people, from FireDogLake:

Register of Deeds John O’Brien Releases Forensic Study, Finds Mass Fraud in Foreclosure Docs
By: David Dayen Thursday June 30, 2011 2:58 pm	Tweet43

Longtime readers know I’ve been covering the registers of deeds, county officials who wield some degree of power in the case of foreclosure fraud, because they hold in their offices a good deal of physical evidence about mortgage assignments and associated documents. Jeff Thigpen, the register of deeds for Guilford County, North Carolina, did a preliminary investigation of a set of documents in his office and found widespread fraud, particularly from forged documents. Thigpen’s key partner, John O’Brien, a register in Southern Essex County, Massachusetts, has been fighting this fight as well. He vowed not to record any documents he suspected of fraud, which would slow some foreclosures. He demanded that MERS pay millions of dollars in back recording fees which were not paid when banks tracked their own mortgage transfers on a database. But O’Brien hadn’t done the work of auditing his office. Until this week, at a convention for county registers.

At the Annual Conference of The International Association of Clerks, Recorders, Election Officials and Treasurers (IACREOT), Register John O’Brien revealed the results of an independent audit of his registry. The audit, which is released as a legal affidavit was performed by McDonnell Property Analytics, examined assignments of mortgage recorded in the Essex Southern District Registry of Deeds issued to and from JPMorgan Chase Bank, Wells Fargo Bank, and Bank of America during 2010. In total, 565 assignments related to 473 unique mortgages were analyzed.
McDonnell’s Report includes the following key findings:
• Only 16% of assignments of mortgage are valid
• 75% of assignments of mortgage are invalid.
• 9% of assignments of mortgage are questionable
• 27% of the invalid assignments are fraudulent, 35% are “robo-signed” and 10% violate the Massachusetts Mortgage Fraud Statute.
• The identity of financial institutions that are current owners of the mortgages could only be determined for 287 out of 473 (60%)
• There are 683 missing assignments for the 287 traced mortgages, representing approximately $180,000 in lost recording fees per 1,000 mortgages whose current ownership can be traced.
McDonnell told O’Brien… “What this means is that the degradation in standards of commerce by which the banks originated, sold and securitized these mortgages are so fatally flawed that the institutions, including many pension funds, that purchased these mortgages don’t actually own them because the assignments of mortgage were never prepared, executed and delivered to them in the normal course of business at the time of the transaction. In a blatant attempt to engineer a ‘fix’ to the problem, the banks set up in-house document execution teams, or outsourced the preparation of their assignments to third parties who manufactured them out of thin air without researching who really owns the mortgage.”

This is why, and I’ll get into this in a future post, the Bank of America settlement with investors, which appears to indemnify the bank and facilitate a conspiracy of silence between banks and investors on these securitization issues, is a really raw deal. It “solves” one problem, BofA’s exposure to the investors in its mortgage backed securities. But it in no way solves the much larger problem, namely who actually owns these mortgages. An independent auditor, after looking at the evidence, could not figure it out.
Predictably, after O’Brien vowed not to record fraudulent documents, the banks started getting back replacement documents, including five from Bank of America, all with brand-new signatures and officers and notaries. They just whitewashed and redid the documents. ” These Lenders chose not to sign my affidavit, but rather to submit completely new documents,” O’Brien said. “I believe the Bank’s actions speak louder than words and show their consciousness of guilt.”
O’Brien is engaged in some real activism. He told every homeowner in his district to check the records at his website and see if their home mortgage documentation has been robo-signed. He’s facilitating consumer protection complaints through the Massachusetts AG. He has provided letters that homeowners can print out and send to their servicers, demanding their full chain of title pursuant to federal law. This is his perspective:

O’Brien asked McDonnell what this means for his constituents. “It is vitally important for your constituents to know that if they are in foreclosure now or if their homes have been foreclosed upon, they can stop the foreclosure from proceeding, or institute a court action to vacate a completed foreclosure. The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court has established the law of the land in its decisions U.S. Bank, N.A. v. Ibanez and Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. LaRace and I can tell you that every single assignment of mortgage that was recorded for the purpose of foreclosing the homeowner is invalid, overtly fraudulent, or criminally fraudulent. My findings also show that your constituents who are not in foreclosure, and have never been delinquent in their payments also have clouds on title due to the recording of defective and invalid discharges and assignments of mortgage.”
“My registry is a crime scene as evidenced by this forensic examination,” stated John O’Brien. “This crime that has affected thousands of homeowners in Essex County who, through no fault of their own, have had their property rights trampled on and their chain of title compromised. This evidence has made it clear to me that the only way we can ever determine the total economic loss and the amount damage done to the taxpayers is by conducting a full forensic audit of all registry of deeds in Massachusetts. I suspect that at the end of the day we are going to find that the taxpayers have been bilked in this state alone of over 400 million dollars not including the accrued interest plus costs and penalties. The Audit makes the finding that this was not only a MERS problem, but a scheme also perpetuated by MERS shareholder banks such Bank of America, Wells Fargo, JP Morgan and others. I am stunned and appalled by the fact that America’s biggest banks have played fast and loose with people’s biggest asset – their homes. This is disgusting, and this is criminal,” said O’Brien.

We literally have two registers of deeds doing the work that the federal government and state regulators should have engaged in for the last decade.

New Oped on CEQA Challenge to Albert Park Pro Ball giveaway

Marin Voice: Albert Park lawsuit about more than baseball in San Rafael

By Dotty LeMieux

Guest op-ed column

Posted: 12/06/2011 05:00:00 AM PST

 

THE IJ's Nov. 28 editorial gives the false impression that neighbors and community members are only thinking of themselves in filing a legal challenge to the planned changes in use at San Rafael's Albert Park.

Crying foul over reasonable demands that the city and the project proponents play by the rules does little to advance understanding of the historical or current use of the ball field or the laws governing environmental review for projects such as this one.

Here are some facts to set the record straight about the reason the community group the Albert Park Neighborhood Alliance, seeking compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act, has filed its lawsuit against the city of San Rafael and Centerfield Partners:

• Contrary to the claims that neighbors don't want to see baseball at Albert Park, the neighbors have peacefully coexisted with baseball nearly every day and evening of the week since Jacob Albert donated the land for public use in 1937.

• Baseball is played there regularly now, only recreational, not commercial ball. The differences are major league. Recreational ball is just that — local youth, amateur adult and semi-pro teams use the field for fun, not for profit. Many of these teams are slated to be displaced by the new use. According to the agreement between the city and Centerfield, semi-pro and collegiate teams may use the field no more than six nightsa season, altogether, without permission from the minor-league team's owners.

This is a major change in use that is bound to have impact. No other use generates anywhere near the traffic contemplated by Centerfield.

• Even the popular collegiate team the San Francisco Seals averaged only 300 fans during its run from the mid-1990s through 2002. Most teams now using the field not only have far fewer spectators, they seldom use amplification or sell concessions.

• Every other use of the land left by Jacob Albert is either city-managed or run by a nonprofit entity for the public's use and benefit — including the day care center, bocce ball courts, tennis courts and community center.

The deed of the land was explicitly for public recreational use, with commercial uses allowed for not more than one week at a time.

• The city's own attorney has already conceded that this use is a "project" under CEQA. And as recently as Aug. 9, Centerfield Partners had agreed to do the necessary environmental studies. It pulled its promise in favor of a "downsized project." This does not change the need for environmental review.

• Even though it has been "downsized," there is no way a commercial venture that has to hire players, purchase equipment, attract investors and promote a fan base will be satisfied with a single-year lease. The Albert Park Neighborhood Alliance feels that such investments can only lead to more leases, more changes in the park's configuration and increased impacts, all without environmental review — amounting to "piecemealing" a larger project, in violation of California's environmental laws.

• The agreement signed by the city allows changes in practically every aspect of the lease, at the whim of the parties, without community input or review.

The Albert Park Neighborhood Alliance is merely asking that they follow the same rules any other project with potential environmental impact has to follow.

The question this paper should be asking is, "What is Centerfield afraid a proper environmental review will show?"

Dotty LeMieux is a San Rafael lawyer and representative for the Albert Park Neighborhood Alliance.

Housing for People not for Profit

When a group of us started the Co-operative natural food store in a Never to be Named Coastal Town in 1976, our motto was "Food for People, not for Profit." That is still the motto, these 35 years later.

A Workers' collective runs the store, with minor adjustments over the years to allow for some division of labor, in ordering food, accounting, overseeing work done, and so forth.  But the basic premise holds true.

A small enterprise admittedly, but one whose principles can apply to other social movements.  We all need to eat.  Why should some get rich off the needs of otherwise?  There is a large movement in this country for Single Payer Health care.  Or what many are calling Medicare for all. The premise is simple, pool our resources, get rid of the middleman in the form of profit-happy insurance companies, and provide decent affordable health care for all.

Another basic need is for shelter. While there are non-profit housing groups, land trusts, co-housing ventures and the like, the profit motive is still big in the housing market, and it still drives housing speculation, while driving honest hard working people out into the street, because they can't afford their mortgage payments to the rapacious banks who suckered them into buying a home on nothing down and a big balloon payment in the not so distant future.

Why should banks, speculators, and developers profit on the need for shelter?  why not take the profit motive out of home sales.  More co-housing, land and housing trusts, sweat equity and local governmental regulation of the construction industry is a good start.

A fair wage for builders, architects, planners and others necessary to see that houses are built well to serve the needs of the people.

All the people. 

We will never have a truly equitable society so long as the few control the land and the land prices, so long as banks can bundle mortgages and land speculators can turn a profit from overbuilding in sensitive areas, because to build just what's needed would not be profitable.

Just today in the Marin IJ, a poor beleaguered developer is crying foul because the Planning Commission has rejected his bid to build 12 luxury homes in a area zoned for 5.  He'll probably get 7 or 8 because otherwise would be to deny him profitable use of his land.

He would cry foul and sue the County.  That's what they do. 

And yet, no one wants to touch this sacred cow of property rights.  Even so called liberals draw the line at anything that might impinge on their ability to turn a profit on land sales.  Yes, many of us have the equity in our home as our only asset.  Selling the family manse to take care of needs later in life like medical bills, colelge tuition and a well deserved retirement is a time honored tradition.

But what if medical needs were taken care of, tuition was free and decent wages were guaranteed for all?  What if there were more cooperative or collectively run businesses, so that over priced everything was no longer the norm?

Then maybe overpriced mortgages would go the way of child labor and sweat shops (oh, yeah, we still have those too). 

What if shared resources were the norm, not an aberration indulged in by Utopian fantasists and old hippies?

Ask yourself the question, what has trickle down capitalism done for me lately?    

Keep capitalism, but make it trickle up; let the many, the 99% decide who runs the banks, (or the credit unions), the businesses and the housing market.
Homes for People, not for Profit.  Think about it.  Good issue for Occupy?

Would Albert Park be a field of dreams—or a field of screams?

Pacific Sun - Friday, November 25, 2011

More on Minor League Baseball plans for San Rafael's Albert Park



Feature: Aaay, batta-batta!

by Peter Seidman

No other endeavor epitomizes the vision of small-town America, romantic past and present reality, than minor league baseball. Hollywood types knew that when they made Bull Durham.

Although that movie looked into the lives and loves of players on their way up and down the baseball ladder, it didn't reveal the real world of minor league baseball, a world that came to San Rafael this year. A proposal to bring minor league ball to Albert Park touched a nerve. Many saw the possibility as an affirmative addition to San Rafael and Marin, an embodiment of the "small-town character" so often mentioned when city governments deliberate a new proposal of almost any kind. Almost nothing can be more "small town" than a minor league baseball team, supporters contend. The proposed team, the San Rafael Pacifics, would provide a welcome addition to the family entertainment possibilities during the summer months; the team also could add revenue to city coffers. A minor league team can bring millions of dollars in ancillary revenue to a town and give a boost to local schools and charities through cross promotions. What could go wrong with a proposal like that?

But this is Marin. Neighbors in the Albert Park area say the proposed team will create unacceptable noise and traffic impacts. They hired attorney Dotty LeMieux to represent their interests. On behalf of the neighbors, LeMieux filed a lawsuit raising a California Environmental Quality Act challenge. It's a common tactic here for opponents of almost everything. The lawsuit says the city erred in its assertion that the baseball team's proposal needs no environmental review under CEQUA. [sic]

"We're not against baseball," LeMieux says. "We just want them to play by the rules." She says an intrinsic part of a minor league team is the focus on family entertainment, which gives parents a chance to pass on values, set good examples—such as following the rules. "When you do a project like this, you need to have an environmental review. They were going to do that, but instead of doing a review they came back with this somewhat truncated project. But it's still a greatly increased use of the space. It still increases the number of people that can be there. They're planning to play baseball 45 days a year, which will keep some of the amateur and semi-pro people out, and there are going to be traffic issues," which have not been adequately addressed. Those issues should be looked at to determine whether a full environmental review is appropriate for the baseball proposal. It's not exactly evocative of the romantic crack-of-the bat vision. 

Lost in much of the debate is exactly who wants to come to town. The team would be the start of a new stable of minor league ball teams in the Bay Area. It's a tough proposition; teams have tried to make the North Bay home before, but they haven't lasted. 

Mike Shapiro is president and general manager of Centerfield Partners, an LLC corporation that bought the rights to run minor league teams in the Bay Area. Brian Clark, known in the aviation industry for playing a key role in bringing Virgin America to, well, America, started Centerfield. "His avocation is baseball," says Shapiro of Clark. "He had this vision and dream that he could form a company that could own and operate multiple minor league teams in the Bay Area." Clark retained Shapiro to put together a business plan and scout locations for the teams. "The first place I took him to was Albert Park because I had played there as a semi-pro player, and my sons currently play there as high school players." 

Shapiro played centerfield at Albert Park from 1974 all the way to 1993 on a variety of semi-pro teams. "I played on so many, it's hard to remember now," says the Corte Madera resident. His history at the ballpark raises one of the issues on which Centerfield and the city rested their contention that the proposal should be categorically exempt from needing a full environmental review. "The truth of the matter is that since [Albert Park] was built in the 1950s, it has hosted a wide range of activities, even some professional exhibition games. There also were collegiate, high school and Little League activities, all levels of play."

• • • •

LEMIEUX AND THE neighbors who object don't buy the contention that because Albert Park has been the site of past baseball activity, the city should open its arms to professional minor league play without an environmental review. The city has failed to assess the difference between the current usage and what will happen when minor league guys step up to the plate. "Even today with the teams that are there, balls hit the walls of nearby apartments." Players for the Pacifics, says LeMieux, "will be professional players. They are heavy hitters." That needs to be reviewed.

When Centerfield first approached the city in April about plans to bring minor league ball to Albert Park, the company proposed adding 800 temporary seats to a 700-seat grandstand. Centerfield also said it would upgrade bathrooms, install netting behind home plate and add other improvements. But neighbors soon voiced their objections. Centerfield responded by reducing the scope of its proposal. The new plan calls for adding just 100 seats and providing free parking. Neighbors said that without free parking, those attending games wouldn't use designated parking and would clog neighborhood streets. Centerfield agreed to the no-fee parking plan.

In addition, a committee will review activity during the season and act as a liaison between the neighborhood, the team and the city. That came about during discussions with the city, Centerfield and the neighbors, says Shapiro. "They said they needed a venue to focus and direct their comments and concerns, and they wanted responsiveness. I said we would do that as a matter of course." Centerfield also agreed to put aside its desire for a three-year lease and sign a one-year agreement with the city. At the end of the first year, Centerfield can go back to the city for an extension, which Shapiro is confident Centerfield will be able to secure after a season goes by with few problems.

San Rafael City Councilman Damon Connolly and Mayor Al Boro served on a subcommittee that went out to the community prior to the city council voting on the team's proposal. The council voted twice, both times giving Centerfield a unanimous nod to round third and head home. "It's fair to say that the process got off to a rocky start," says Connolly. "Neighbors expressed concerns that they weren't being heard. In response to that, we made a point to meet with the neighbors. By the end of the process, I was satisfied that this will be a good opportunity for the city, and I've heard a lot of positive feedback from the community on the vote. I hope [the team] will be a boost to local business and provide a source of family entertainment." Connolly says the city decided the proposal could be exempt from an initial environmental review because of the process the city undertook to get community input, which led to the scaled-down proposal and the concessions to which Centerfield agreed.

City Councilman Greg Brockbank came up short in his bid for the mayor's chair in the recent election; he's leaving the council and has no ax to grind. He says the neighbors "are overly concerned" about the impacts from the Pacifics playing at Albert Park. "There won't be any night use. There might be slightly larger crowds, and maybe their PA system will be used a little more often than it is now," but the impacts "won't be unduly burdensome."

Brockbank acknowledges the neighbors' concerns over the increased commotion and clamor that will occur, but he points out that the neighborhood already has noise and impacts from the local farmers' market and the current activities at the park. "Some people think they ought to have the right to have their windows open on a summer night and not have to hear baseball noise." But the crack of the bat already sounds in the park, proponents reiterate. It's also true, as LeMieux points out, that the players cracking the bats now aren't heavy-hitter pros. Still, when a prospective homeowner buys property next to an airport—or a baseball field—it's reasonable to assume that some noise will emanate from what should be an expected use.

Centerfield is proceeding with plans to start its 45-game season for the Pacifics in May, barring legal delays. The Pacifics will be part of the North American Baseball League, which includes teams in California, Hawaii, Texas and Canada. Commissioner Kevin Outcalt says a team in Nevada may be a new addition. "We're still working on a few team inclusions. We have our league winter meeting the first week of December, and we'll come up with our draft schedule then."

• • • •

THE NORTH AMERICAN Baseball League is independent, which means it's not affiliated with major league teams. It's been in existence for eight years, according to Outcalt. For six of those years, it was known as the Golden Gate Baseball League, with teams mostly on the West Coast. Last year, the league expanded and rebranded itself as the North American League. 

The minor league system in baseball includes a "farm system" of teams, each affiliated with a major league team. In the farm system, AAA teams are closest to the majors; AA is one notch down; and A teams are for newcomers to professional ball. The goal is to produce players for the affiliated major league teams. Winning games is less important than working with players to make them credible major league prospects. Independent minor league teams, like the Pacifics, play to win, although players on independent teams unaffiliated with major league teams can and do advance to the majors.

"Most of the North American League players will be players that played in major league organizations and were released," says Outcalt. "About half the team will have AA or AAA experience. The other half will be A players or a few college guys. It's tough to make a team in our league if you have no professional experience because the level of play is very high."

The history of minor league ball in the North Bay shows how tough it is to bring a team to the area and survive. The Sonoma County Crushers called Rohnert Park Stadium home until financial reality ended the dream about 10 years ago. A plan to bring an affiliated minor league team to Windsor met with opposition from the San Francisco Giants, which controls the North Bay territory for affiliated minor league teams.

Shapiro, who says he has two physical handicaps—he's short and a lefty—wound up in baseball management. He worked with the Giants and the Braves and was senior vice president of the Washington Nationals before returning to Marin to join Centerfield Partners.

"This offers me an opportunity to take all I learned in the majors and bring it down to the community level. I can't imagine having any more fun. I just turned 60 this year, but I'm way more immature than that."

Walmart circumvents Environmental Laws.

Well, they're at it again.  Walmart is sneaking around circumventing California's environmental laws.  surprise surprise.  Don't fall for this tactic folks.

Walmart wins big with California initiatives

Will Evans, California Watch

Thursday, November 24, 2011

In a push to expand across California without interference, Walmart is increasingly taking advantage of the state's initiative system to threaten elected officials with costly special elections and to avoid environmental lawsuits.
The Arkansas-based retailer has hired paid signature gatherers to circulate petitions to build new superstores or repeal local restrictions on big-box stores. Once 15 percent of eligible voters sign the petitions, state election law puts cash-strapped cities in a bind: City councils must either approve the Walmart-drafted measure without changes or put it to a special election.
As local officials grapple with whether to spend tens of thousands or even millions of taxpayer dollars on such an election, Walmart urges cities to approve the petition outright rather than send it to voters.
While most development projects don't attract much controversy, Walmart has become controversial across California. Backers of organized labor have demonized the company for opposing unions and paying low wages, while other critics say its superstores cripple local businesses and increase sprawl.
Walmart's use of the initiative process has angered elected officials who say the company's political strategy effectively holds them hostage.
"They circumvented the system and blackmailed the town," said Rick Roelle, a councilman in Apple Valley (San Bernardino County), where Walmart pushed through a superstore proposal in April. "We've had controversial projects, but we were never bullied like Walmart."
Walmart and its supporters argue that the strategy helps speed up development that can boost employment and tax revenue as well as low-price shopping. The initiative process, according to the company, pressures cities only because it shows the strong community support for Walmart.
"The initiative process was an opportunity that allowed voters to voice their support for the benefits that Walmart would bring their community, including jobs, affordable groceries, increased tax revenue, and infrastructure improvements," Walmart spokeswoman Delia Garcia said in a statement.
The company has employed the same well-honed strategy across the state, from the Central Valley agricultural community of Kerman (Fresno County) to the Silicon Valley suburb of Milpitas to Apple Valley, where the main street has a special crosswalk button for horse riders.

Ramping up

Walmart has ramped up the campaign in the last year, pushing through four new superstore projects and fighting big-box regulations in San Diego. The company spent $2 million on the effort, paying election lawyers, campaign consultants and public relations firms.
Walmart often rallies a crowd of supporters at city council meetings to back up its position. Pastor Ray Smith, president of a group called Pastors on Point, asked his followers to support Walmart in San Diego. He spoke passionately against an ordinance imposing new regulations on superstores, saying other stores don't hire enough African Americans.
At one city meeting, he called on a group of young people to stand and told the City Council, "You want to stop the violence? We need jobs."
Walmart paid Smith's church to bus supporters to council meetings and shuttle young people who gathered signatures for a ballot initiative petition against the regulations. Walmart's local political committee also reported paying $13,400 in salary and consultant payments to Smith directly, in addition to $5,500 labeled "van/bus rental."
Smith said the campaign filings were incorrect. "They did rent our buses ... but I was never a consultant for them," he said.
Walmart uses the ballot initiative process in part to shield its superstores from lawsuits under the California Environmental Quality Act. The landmark 1970 law requires state and local agencies to review and mitigate the environmental and traffic impacts of development projects. Lawyers often sue Walmart, contending that the review didn't go far enough.
The company has found a loophole: Once it switches to a ballot initiative, the law doesn't apply.
Other companies occasionally pursue ballot initiatives on development projects. But Walmart is the main player, and California is the main battleground.
Walmart's successful strategy raises questions about whether California's communities - dogged by economic woes - can afford an aggressive use of the state's system of direct democracy. Other interest groups could use the same strategy to pressure elected officials, as medical marijuana advocates recently did to defeat pot-club regulations in San Diego.
This year, four cities approved Walmart's initiative petition without an election. One of them, San Diego, repealed its own superstore regulations in the face of an election that could have cost $3.4 million. Only Menifee in Riverside County held a special election, costing taxpayers $79,000. Walmart spent nearly $400,000 there - and won handily.

Opponents' stance

The strategy violates the spirit, if not the letter, of state environmental law, said Richard Frank, former California chief deputy attorney general for legal affairs.
"It is disturbing because it appears to be a fairly overt circumvention of the CEQA process," said Frank, now director of the California Environmental Law & Policy Center at the UC Davis School of Law.
Walmart argues that it closely adheres to California's extensive regulations. The strategy is necessary, it says, to avoid spurious lawsuits targeting the company for political reasons. The retailer points out that it goes much of the way through a lengthy planning process, allowing for an environmental impact report and public input, before heading to the ballot box.
"In many places around the state," Garcia said, "we often obtain store approvals but are subjected to special interests that attempt to use political and legal challenges to unfairly delay a store's construction."
Since the 1990s, activists also have used ballot initiatives to block Walmart stores.
Walmart turned that strategy on its head when it began proposing its own initiatives. The company suffered a sobering, nationally publicized loss in Inglewood in 2004. The company spent more than $1 million on a ballot measure to open a superstore there. Unions fought back, and voters shot it down.
But Walmart hasn't lost in California since.
In 2007, Walmart used the initiative process to force Long Beach to repeal an ordinance banning certain superstores that sell groceries. The council, facing tough budgetary times, decided the city couldn't afford an election, giving in to the company. In 2009, Walmart defeated a big-box ban in Salinas the same way.
Last year, city councils approved Walmart superstore initiatives without an election in the small Gold Country city of Sonora and the Mojave Desert military base community of Ridgecrest. This year, with five victories, has been Walmart's busiest.
Walmart continues to see a big opportunity for growth in California. The company already has 212 stores and employs 67,525 people in the state.
Sometimes, council members ask Walmart to pay for the election. This year in Pittsburg, for example, another developer offered to pay for the election costs of its ballot initiative. But Walmart always declines.
"We are not embarrassed by our decision to move to an initiative and to allow the electorate to overwhelmingly weigh in, but we are not prepared to cover any costs for an election," Walmart spokesman Aaron Rios said at an Apple Valley Town Council meeting in April.

California Watch, the state's largest investigative reporting team, is part of the independent, nonprofit Center for Investigative Reporting. For more, visit www.californiawatch.org.

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/11/24/BA0O1M3DNR.DTL

This article appeared on page C - 2 of the San Francisco Chronicle