Page 1 of 4
Posted on August 5 at 2:17 a.m.
Sorry this location had legal agreements of no disturbance. funny how people tend to forget the very law they stand behind.
On Memorial Benches Removed for ‘Cultural Considerations’
Posted on August 5 at 1:54 a.m.
the 2003 amendments to CA Public Resources Code 5097.993 says
"that any person is guilty of a misdemeanor if the person:*unlawful and maliciously;*excavates upon, removes, destroys, injures, or defaces;*a Native American historic, cultural, or sacred site, that is listed or may be eligible for listing in the California Register of Historic Resources, pursuant to Section 5024.1, including any historic or prehistoric ruins, any burial ground, any archaeological or historic site, any inscriptions made by Native Americans at such a site, any archeological or historic Native American rock are, or any archaeological or hsitorical feature of a Native American historic, cultural, or sacred site...."
This amendment, known as the 'Chesbro Law' after Sentor Chesbro was enacted as the "NATIVE AMERICANHISTORIC RESOURCE PROTECTION ACT (NAHRPA).. The penalities are up to a year in jail, a $10,0000 fine.Civil penalties can be up to $50,0000.
I am sure NextG can afford this.
On NextG Cellular Project Inches Forward
Posted on August 5 at 1:50 a.m.
Are you kidding.....NextG put a gun to the BOS.
They acted like a corporation that will come in and do what it wants regardless of what the community or even the BOS wanted to see being done.
One speaker said that nextg was knocking at the front door and even if you don't answer they were going to come in the back door anyways. NextG spoke of public outreach and all the residents there said they had never been contacted and that NextG was not portraying themselves as a positive and responsible applicant.
Here is what really happened.
NextG played the system to its fullest, They got an exemption from the Public Utilities commission ( or some state agency, I forget) and have been running around with that as a free pass to do what ever they want. The Monticito Planning commission denied there permit because they felt that it did not qualify as an exempt project, the State Agency had not taken into several points of approval on this exemption. The denial of the permit at the planning dept opened the door to the BOS to review.
They went before the BOS at the start and gave the BOS a bargaining offer. Grant trenching tonight and we will defer the rest of the nine appeals to sept and look are reducing two nodes. Carbajal stood up and spoke that this all didn't feel right, why are we even considering bargoning with an appeal? it was just wrong.
Just before the BOS made the motion to continue to sept staff spoke up and said NextG told them that day that If you do not approve trenching and we will just do on the poles and move on.
The installation of the lines on the existing poles are considered to be completely exempt for any permit requirements and in fact are cheaper than trenching. This would cause a visual blight. The point that this topic came out was just before the BOS were about to continue all the appeals to Sept 21st. Everyone in the room saw NextG actions as a complete disregard of the BOS authority.
If you had been there you would have seen the BOS got slapped.
That was the real story there. The impact of NextG project are supposed to be guided and governed by the conditions of approval. I bet they will find a way to do the project just as they want regardless of these conditions. The attitude and methods used are clear they will be someone to watch closely.
In my three years of hearings I have never seen such a play out of posturing and dramatic manipulation of the system.
Posted on July 30 at 9:13 p.m.
I am not anti business. I am against giving a free pass without looking at the proposal with data that is justified so that an INFORMED decision can be made. Not just tossing it up to it will all be alright just because.
There is a significant impact here. Not only trafic but it causes a domino effect and runs into other impacts. Just because you think it will be good for economy or bring vitality to the businesses doesnt mean you should ignore everything else? thats stupid. Thats the point here.
Thats why the planning process was created so we dont have screwed up development projects.The planning process was not followed properly in this case.
We can have construction and development but lets not be fools about it. we need too as a community be mindful of the stuff that goes on.
This specific area is a special case. it cannot be compared to all developments. It needs a closer look because of its specific make up of infrastructure.The process in which the City conducts its review is just as important because if any project needed a review then this was it. How blind could they be? I know how blind they can be I have seen it. This project just proved how bullheaded they are. All about the $$
On BevMo! A Go-Go
Posted on July 29 at 10:20 p.m.
ill buy that for a dollar!
On New Owners for Naples?
Posted on July 29 at 10:14 p.m.
SBdad I am not the typical commentor on projects.
I have no care about Bevmo one way or the other, the fact an outlet where booz will be sold attracts drinkers and the random potential drunk driver to an area next to a school is not my bag of complaints but i am the those M.A.D.D folks would gladly chime in on that point, its kinda obvious.
I see wine tasting events that go on and not a police car in sight, why because it is an accepted activity in this town. Cops would make a killing in tickets at one of theses events with a check point. Kinda silly I think the one activity that sells a product that has the greatest potential to takes lives is not as bad as massage parlor or medical mowie shop...but socially unacceptable so it is badddd....so silly. Doesnt the massage parlor bring economic growth, jobs taxes too? But that is not my concern.
My real concern is the governmental process for all development projects and how the process is carried out. If they get away with covering up a mistake now because of bullheaded stubborness then that impacts us all down the line.
The City council is wrong in this process.
Posted on July 29 at 10:01 p.m.
The checklist should point out potential impacts, staff can tweek in many ways what is actually looked at, what the checklist is made up of, citing certain points are not relevant. This is where judgment comes into play. Mistakes are made right at this point.
Staff and everyone knows that any business that goes in that location should have a very close look at what kind of impact it would have to the neighborhood. This has nothing to do with allowing a business to go in or not. Wrong topic. In fact the way CEQA works is the community is supposed to review the merits and conformity of a project. Not leave it all up to staff and paid consultants to decide. When I hear people supporting staff mistakes blindly for some positive simple reasoning just means they really have no clue on how this all works. Staff are human and they will make mistakes, this is where the public comes in to point theses things out and the City council should be knowledgeable enough of this fact to make corrections. To go back and say, hey we shoulda done a environmental review so that the community is aware of what the impacts are and through this process we can create mitigation measures that will help reduce the impacts in a way that is applicable to the highest extent, not just make random guesses at what will work cuz we want a job in the area. It is not about people whining about a wine shop. Its about being responsible.
This is what the government is supposed to do, look out for the community it serves. This doesn’t stop Bevmo from going into business nor anyone else for that matter. It is good common sense. CEQA was created to help reduce impacts and is monitored by the community.
As for traffic, that is not my concern, it is the lack of responsible planning is. I have been in the loop more than you know on the Plan SB.
This skirting of significant impacts as non significant with out any real data is just carelessness or deliberate. This is the crux of the problem, and having an unknowledgeable City on process just leads to whos got the prettiest colors to look at and how much tax can the City get for it.
Posted on July 29 at 12:47 a.m.
Unfortunate event for the process of local government. Most people will focus on the merits of BevMo and what they will or will not bring to the area. That is not the main issue with this case.It’s the ability of the City of SB to serve the community in a safe and productive manor.
Staff stated in its report that it conducted a thorough environmental review of the possible impacts, but when you read the report further they starte that review was an environmental checklist. How thorough is a checklist?
Anyone with any common sense knows that area to be extremely sensitive to traffic. One little instant of trouble and it all comes crumbling down. Try to imagine coming down state and making that left turn at the light to get in to BevMo…..waiting for north bound traffic to end and just making it as the light changes. Then think of the cars behind you waiting for you…then the lane on the right that turns down de la Vina, moving at a slow crawl…what if your three cars back, all you get is the bottleneck effect and stuck in traffic. Then try to imagine all that and a semi trying to turn left onto state from just making a delivery, they can’t! Now imagine you’re a semi trying to turn into BevMo at the light and all that takes place. No way.You can’t turn left going south on state in that area!
At the hearing last minute reports are submitted that do not include the adjacent road that trucks will use as exit route. The city council should have stopped right there and said that staff made a mistake and the process was flawed. This project did not qualify as an exemption in CEQA because it had met the criteria for exception..15300.2 b,c. There is a significant impact that needs to be reviewed. Expert testimony had been provided that no study had been conducted by staff that would or could conclude an exemption was warranted.
This is a serious flaw for the City council not to grasp the ramifications of there actions and the process that CEQA gives direction too. Swayed by testimony that the ADR had done there job..well yes but the ADR had nothing to do with the exemption and are not qualified to address that topic of project designation.
Funny how the BevMo reps tried to say that no one brought up an issue till the last min. Keyt news had footage from Feb showing how it was a big issue for neighbors. Staff report shows 150 signatures were brought in that month too opposing the project. The community’s outcry is a sign of a significant economical and social impact, along with traffic long before approval. No one caught that sitting on the City Council.
It was brought up but the City turned a blind eye to the people it serves, the community the bad actions of staff, the overall planning process. Who do they work for really?
Posted on May 27 at 1:31 a.m.
Haku, Peter Peli,
I thank you and yes I will join you.
I invite you to the Board of supervisors hearing for the Botanical Garden on Tuesday June 1st at the County admin building. The fate of Xana'yan will be decided by those folks. I have an appeal to protect it.
We will be in touch!KsenSku
On Santa Barbara, Annex This Land!
Posted on May 27 at 1:20 a.m.
This is so funny, I heard a radio advertisement for the same company advocating for the IT work to be outsourced so that the county could save money.
So can the County really save money with the staff they currently have, prolly not, they will have to bring in more staff then have to pay for insurance and workmans comp and everything else that comes with more staff.
looks more like the ole find the pea in shell game..
On County Departments Shifted Around