CEQA concerns

Good Morning

Thank you Randy.

Note: I also filed a complaint against city for permitting contractor to demo the foundation in contradiction of the essential prohibitions affixed to the plans, imposed by law, and City Council (CC) appeal. The additional grading and demo beyond that allowed by the CC as “Ministerial” triggers discretionary review, even now. It was noted in the recent Arcata Eye “opinion” in a report made by Larry to the editor that the community development director (Larry) and the director of Public Works reviewed the permit on file, clearly stamped with the prohibition against removing the foundation… but did no see any reason to reject contractor’s request.

In order to follow up with any further legal complaint, as you know, I am required to attempted to resolve the complaint through the city’s complaint process. So, looking for a response or a settlement. This is the full complaint.

I spoke to Larry yesterday with the permit and his comments to Kevin Hoover before both of us. He said I was confused about which building permit was at issue. As you may know the demolition was appealed (Larry’s right to make a ministerial decision was appealed), to halt the ongoing CEQA public process. His argument, upheld by the CC, was that the applicant had withdrawn the application before planning that required CEQA and applied for a new permit of limited scope, no grading, no foundation to be removed that would not trigger CEQA. Any additional work would unquestionably require planning approval. His argument for a “Ministerial” permit still implied that CEQA was deferred, or as our attorney argued that this was an attempt to segment a project to avoid CEQA, which is against the law. It was foreseeable that additional work would be necessary, and this would still trigger CEQA.

Attached is the permit and the prohibition. Larry and Dobie are at your disposal to explain what happened. The safety argument is not even close to valid, the work was done according to plans and discussion originally presented and the community objected for the same reasons that remain today.

A greater concern now is that the city authorized on site waste treatment and disposal of hazardous waste without ANY CEQA review. The site is (your responsibility to check) likely contaminated and will contaminate (or has) adjacent and abutting properties (dust, water transportation of the existing contaminated soils, now bare soil (different standard for bare soil. (> 400 ppm?).

The reason the discretionary publicly review CEQA process exists, to inform and advise the applicant, city and affected community, before the project is executed. All of the abutting neighbors will have great grounds for civil and criminal complaints against the city, CC, you, Dobie and Larry… not to mention the contractor.

The city should take immediate action to test soils and water on site. Reportedly no fill was imported, this is also untrue, even so, the surrounding soils can generally be expected to be contaminated above action levels for bare soil lead (Pb)…On site treatment requires special permits, mixing soils is onsite treatment. I picked up several of the numerous fragments of plaster (ACM) from the ivy.Rains will percolate through the disturbed soils like water through ground coffee, and flow offsite, into streets, yards, bay.

This is a lot like trying to put and egg back in a shell… you cannot correct all here, but its important that “the city” act lawfully. This is way out of line.

The AG and regulatory agencies will be notified in all cases.

I’m requesting the city, in response to complaint to:

1) resume CEQA process for 1000 A street.

2) ensure all hazards mitigated according to CA law.

2) promise training to senior staff.

3) discuss problem, solution in open.

4) review responsible employee performance (avoiding CEQA is not a city policy).

5 propose ordinance waiving fees for 3rd party CEQA challenges to CC.

6) any resulting fines levied be paid to EPIC.. or CAL AWARE (although as far as record shows to date contractor and owner acted as directed by city staff).

Private enforcement of CEQA would almost certainly include attorney fees if awarded. Private action is generally how CEQA is enforced although in egregious cases the state will initiate and otherwise sanction a city at fault. This is not the worst case ever, it is one of the most deliberately executed evasions with a jurisdiction’s supervision, oversight and approval. It has also establish a precedent (repeated several times so far in Arcata, according to the community development director) to specifically avoid CEQA on major projects (more than one hazard removal). It would be surprising if the state agreed with Larry’s interpretation of when CEQA applies, how can CEQA not apply to this project?

Thank you, happy to discuss.

Regards,

Marc Delany

Arcata

cc CC, N Diamond, Larry, Kevin Hoover".

But I guess breaking the law to the benefit of the higher income folks in town could be considered bu some to be "doing a good job".

To me the "local regulations" are Jim Crowe laws that apply to medical marijuana users and producers, and therefor a civil rights issue.

The AMCC decision further held that "[Los Angeles] County's total, per se nuisance ban against medical marijuana dispensaries directly contradicts the Legislature's intent," and called that contradiction "direct, patent, obvious, and palpable."

Please direct us to any instance of anyone involved making the statement that, "I am good at my job."

Since you say they "all" made this claim, it should be easy to track down at least one example.