AgdaPkt 2010-06-07 clds, jnt - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

7A Page 76 INTRODUCTION There is sufficient cause for NOT approving the Negative Declaration and Initial Study. Simply stated, the Initial Study and Negative Declaration is not CEQA compliant. The most obvious cause is the failure to provide adequate, complete and a good-faith effort at full disclosure. These documents are full of false statement$~ misleading statements that are not presented in the proper context (i.e. missing information), statements that are not substantiated by any facts, and even statements where the Staff somehow as gone back in tlme and determined the Iflntent" of City Staff, Planning Commissioners, and City Council members from at least 33 years ago. Worst of all, the City's sole justlfication for make the zoning ordinance modification is base on an Interpretation of the Zoning Ordinance that has been challenged in a Court of Law1. Instead, if waiting for a decision from the Courts regarding the legality of the Clt( s past practice on a "1.54 acre parcel, the City Staff is attempting to re-write the purpose, petmitted u.ses and density of the R2 districts in an attempt to legalize the City's past practice prior to the Courts decision on the same practice. All of the documentation created by City Staff and all of the testimony provided by CIty Staff in support of the Planning Commission appr6val refers to the proposed Zoning Ordinance modification as a 'Text Amendment' for clarifying an existIng practice that is compliant to the exi~ing Zoning Ordinance, and existing General Plan. All of the documentation created by City Staff and aU of the testimony provIded by City Staff never discloses that there is lawsuit challenging the City's past practice. The only mention of the lawsuit is a carefully crafted false statement in the Staff Report' "Staff initiated this amendment in response to a lackof clarity, as well as a result of a project which was approved In 2009 and during the entitlement process concerns were raised with respect to the interpretation and ambiguity of this section of the zonIng ordinance." [Staff Report; April 20, 2010; Initial Study/Negative Declaration and Zoning Text Amendment for the Resldentral Duplex (R-2) Zoning District] This Is only reference to the Kentfleld lawsuit. in documentation crea~ed by City Staff. That documentation includes, Initial Study, Negative Declaration, Public Heating Notice, and Staff Report. There is a logical reason why the Kentfield lawsuit is not mentioned in the documentation created by City Staff and all of the testimony provided by CitY Staff. As a matter of policy, all matters related to a lawsuit must go through the City Attorney's Office. Unless authorized to by the City Attorney's Office, City Staff, and other offlci~ls of the City government are not pennitted to discuss any aspect of a lawsuit. In this includes not acknowledging a lawsuit exists. As manIfested In the documentation listed above, and testlmony at the Planning Commission meeting, the City is actively suppressing any information related to the Kentfield lawsuit. The same lawsuit "initiated this amendment", as identified in the Staff Report. 1 The CitV's.lnterpretation is being chaUenged through a lawsuit associated with the Oty approval of the project at 1581 & 1617 Kentfleld Ave. 2