Comments by webadmin
Page 1 of 1
Posted on August 10 at 5:25 p.m.
This comment was moved to this proper spot by Webadmin:
Posted by DinahMason (anonymous) on June 16, 2007 at 10:55 a.m.
(This comment was removed by the site staff.)
Posted by GregMohr (anonymous) on August 10, 2007 at 3:43 p.m. (Remove)
Last weekend I sent these comments to Caltrans, and was asked by a friend and colleague to post them here for others to see:
04 August 2007
I'm sorry not to have been able to attend the informational meeting in Santa Barbara on 25 July 2007. I've reviewed the PowerPoint presentation (May 2007) posted on the project website, and have gathered much information about the proposal from other sources, including news reports from the 25 July meeting.
Despite all of my efforts to gather information, I'm still unsure of the exact purpose of the 25 July meeting. I had assumed it was a scoping meeting to gather input as to the potentially significant adverse impacts associated with a specific proposed suicide prevention barrier; however, all of my sources, including the PowerPoint presentation posted on the Caltrans website, lead me to believe otherwise. It seems more likely that the 25 July meeting was intended to "sell" the concept of a physical suicide prevention barrier, presumably a curved-over-the-deck fence of some sort.
At this time, I must assume that the proposed or preferred project is a physical barrier, most likely one rising above the bridge's sides and curving to some extent over the deck. In this case, Caltrans has no option under CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines other than to prepare an EIR and, if federal highway funds are involved, a combined EIR-EIS, which would examine the potentially significant adverse impacts of the preferred project design and various feasible alternatives. The most obvious potentially significant adverse effects are related to visual aesthetics and historic resources. As required by CEQA and possibly NEPA, the examined alternatives must address those that could avoid or reduce potentially significant adverse impacts while meeting the basic project objectives. Such an examination of alternatives would not be possible under a negative declaration (ND) or combined ND-EA/FONSI.
In any case, the obvious potentially significant adverse impacts would preclude the latter level(s) of environmental review, regardless of the alleged benefits of the project.
Please contact me directly if you have any questions or need more information.
Sincerely,
Gregory Mohr
Former Planner and Environmental Specialist, Santa Barbara County (January 1979-May 2007)
Santa Barbara, CA
Posted on August 9 at 11:07 p.m.
Bargs said:
"When the Indy Local Heroes ballots appear, mine will have his name on it."
Funny you should mention that; here's the link to the ballot:
http://www.independent.com/local_heroes/...
--WebAdmin
Posted on July 29 at 10:18 a.m.
Thanks for the correction; it has been changed in the listing --Indy Staff
Posted on July 25 at 10:48 p.m.
Great point, Helena. A quick check of Webster's Online shows flack to be a variant of flak, but interestingly not the other way around. So, we go with your correction.
Page 1 of 1
Previous Month
Posted on July 5 at 5:27 p.m.
In response to SBComputerGuy, we have provided a link to our Google-based map which Ray Ford updated today, July 5 at noon. Ray will attempt to update twice a day.
And for RForsyth, if you have a cell phone, follow our link to www.twitter.com/sbinde and you will have our frequent updates sent to your cell phone, as long as your cell phone accepts text messages and is operational -- power or not.
--WebAdmin
On A Collection of Today's Gap Fire Press Releases