*
Brian, you seem to misunderstand the facts and the law. I thought it funny that you referred to me as an opportunist. I do not file suits against anyone. I represent clients that feel that they have been significantly impacted by the environmental consequences of the jurisdiction’s actions. I entered law school at the age of 47 for the specific purpose of helping people who were being victimized by the very governments who were there supposedly to protect them. I offer my services to groups at very low rates to provide them access to the legal system. I actually took a pay cut to practice law, hardly the mark of an opportunist. I have never advertised and don’t even have a phone number listed for the firm. People have to work to find me, but they do.
*
*
I find it interesting that you bemoan the cost to the taxpayers of the litigation over the Outdoor Activity Center. It will probably cost the City around $65,000. What is interesting though is that the reason overturned the approval was that the City approved the project without requiring the developer to mitigate his fair share of traffic impacts. In this case, the fair share was in excess of $12,000,000. In other words, by not requiring the developer to pay this expenditure the public would be forced to pay for this twelve million dollar expenditure. My clients cost the City $65,000 maybe, but saved the residents of Grand Terrace $12,000,000. I guess you are right. It would be better to stick the people with a $12,000,000 bill rather than a $65,000. It should also be noted that my clients offered to settle the suit by having the City rescind the approval of the OAC and the EIR and pay the then attorney fees of $20,000. This City chose not to do this.
*
You also claim that these suits are frivolous and based upon loopholes in the law. Nothing could be further from the truth. In the case of the OAC there was a two part test for the judge. He had to deny the petition unless there was no evidence to support the approval or unless the City failed to comply with the law. This is an extremely high burden and is met in only a very small number of cases. The judge in that case routinely declines to find for the plaintiff in what he refers to as “hyper-technical” violations of the law. The judge in that case concluded that the City had not complied with the law because they failed to adequately require the mitigation of $12,000,000. of traffic impacts. The Court also held that the City failed to consider a reasonable range of alternatives to the project as required by law. They City decided what it wanted to do and did not want to be bothered by the requirement of the law that it must consider alternatives to the project that can reduce the environmental impacts. These are not frivolous issues but are serious issues that were among those that the California Environmental Quality Act was specifically adopted to prevent.
You also claim that these suits are frivolous and based upon loopholes in the law. Nothing could be further from the truth. In the case of the OAC there was a two part test for the judge. He had to deny the petition unless there was no evidence to support the approval or unless the City failed to comply with the law. This is an extremely high burden and is met in only a very small number of cases. The judge in that case routinely declines to find for the plaintiff in what he refers to as “hyper-technical” violations of the law. The judge in that case concluded that the City had not complied with the law because they failed to adequately require the mitigation of $12,000,000. of traffic impacts. The Court also held that the City failed to consider a reasonable range of alternatives to the project as required by law. They City decided what it wanted to do and did not want to be bothered by the requirement of the law that it must consider alternatives to the project that can reduce the environmental impacts. These are not frivolous issues but are serious issues that were among those that the California Environmental Quality Act was specifically adopted to prevent.
*
As to the City making itself an easy target, they do. Rather than attempt to comply with CEQA the City tries to see how they can avoid complying with the law. They seem to simply not care how projects affect the residents of Grand Terrace. Their priority seems to be helping the developers rather than the residents. An interesting question for the citizens of Grand Terrace is why has the City Council paid the Corporation for Better Housing over $3,200,000 of their tax money for a project that the courts have required that the City rescind their approvals and no work has been done on the project?
As to the City making itself an easy target, they do. Rather than attempt to comply with CEQA the City tries to see how they can avoid complying with the law. They seem to simply not care how projects affect the residents of Grand Terrace. Their priority seems to be helping the developers rather than the residents. An interesting question for the citizens of Grand Terrace is why has the City Council paid the Corporation for Better Housing over $3,200,000 of their tax money for a project that the courts have required that the City rescind their approvals and no work has been done on the project?
*
Most cities have very few challenges to projects on environmental grounds because they do a good job of complying with the law and protecting their residents. Fewer than one tenth of one percent of development proposals are challenged on CEQA grounds. Some cities approvals are challenged on a routine basis because the City consistently fails to comply with the law and fails to protect the residents. Ironically, often I find out about problem projects from planning staff members who feel that the politicians have acted improperly.
Most cities have very few challenges to projects on environmental grounds because they do a good job of complying with the law and protecting their residents. Fewer than one tenth of one percent of development proposals are challenged on CEQA grounds. Some cities approvals are challenged on a routine basis because the City consistently fails to comply with the law and fails to protect the residents. Ironically, often I find out about problem projects from planning staff members who feel that the politicians have acted improperly.
*
As to my motives, they are easy. I help people protect themselves from being subjected to unreasonable noise, unhealthful air, traffic, and toxic materials. A recent case involved seeking to require the developer of a project notify future home buyers that the area of the homes would subject the buyers to a significantly increased cancer risk. Imagine that, the developer did not want to make that disclosure for some reason. Additionally, there is a strong belief in environmental and economic justice involved in my motives to help people. When a multimillion dollar corporation does not have to mitigate their environmental impacts, the residents of the area have two choices, live or die with the impacts or pay for them themselves. When a multimillion dollar corporation does not pay for mitigating their impacts that cost is shifted to the residents of the area. The local resident with both family members working or working multiple jobs to pay for their house ends up subsidizing the multimillion dollar corporation. Personally, I find this to be offensive and outrageous.
*
As to my motives, they are easy. I help people protect themselves from being subjected to unreasonable noise, unhealthful air, traffic, and toxic materials. A recent case involved seeking to require the developer of a project notify future home buyers that the area of the homes would subject the buyers to a significantly increased cancer risk. Imagine that, the developer did not want to make that disclosure for some reason. Additionally, there is a strong belief in environmental and economic justice involved in my motives to help people. When a multimillion dollar corporation does not have to mitigate their environmental impacts, the residents of the area have two choices, live or die with the impacts or pay for them themselves. When a multimillion dollar corporation does not pay for mitigating their impacts that cost is shifted to the residents of the area. The local resident with both family members working or working multiple jobs to pay for their house ends up subsidizing the multimillion dollar corporation. Personally, I find this to be offensive and outrageous.
*
At a recent Planning Commission hearing the Planning Commission Chairman suggested that perhaps they should have the environmental documents reviewed to make sure they were adequate. The rest of the commissioners didn’t want the developer to have to wait to make sure the city was complying with the law. Go figure. If you want to be upset with someone be upset with the city council who puts the interests of the development community over the interests and safety of their residents.
Raymond W. Johnson Esq. AICP
