 |
"The Daily Journal (San Mateo), Staff, 10/20/12. "Numerous Transit Village meetings increase contract".
.... The proposed development concerns a 10.53-acre strip of land within the existing Caltrain station and running parallel to the railroad corridor. Legacy’s proposal envisions eight four-story buildings with 281 housing units among a mix of 407,298 square feet of residential, 23,797 square feet of office space and 14,326 square feet of retail space. The project would also include 667 parking spaces and a new SamTrans Transit Center on 4.29 acres.
Eastside residents have spent hours at the previous Planning Commission meetings questioning the EIR’s conclusions about parking and noise impacts." Read article.
Related article - San Mateo Daily Journal, 10/16/12. "Neighbors balk at San Carlos'Transit Village review." Palo Alto Daily News, 7/30/12."San Carlos Transit Village plan draws flak from city's east-side residents." Fix Pacifica reprint, 7/27/12, "San Carlos transit village project moving forward.".
My guess is the Loma Prieta Sierra Club and related environmental/NIMBY organizations are involved with the neighbors who oppose the Transit Village project based upon noise and parking. This is the same Loma Prieta Sierra Club that drags out regulatory review for development projects, runs up cost for the developer and the city, spins information, and sometimes kills developments altogether. Remember, this is the same Loma Prieta Sierra Club that does not support progress in Pacifica: Loma Prieta Sierra Club Resolution against Pacifica quarry development. Also see Fix Pacifica reprint article, "Pacifica Climate Action Plan Study with a twist", (the Sierra Club against quarry development and highway 1 widening). Some Sierra Club members are even against retaining historic "open space" Sharp Park Golf Course, go figure!
Posted by Kathy Meeh
11 comments:
And the same Loma Prietta chapter of the Sierra Club that is gushing that Rich Campbell is the perfect candidate. Why? What's been promised?
Uh, that he'll be exactly what his professional and personal track record would suggest...an enviro with more experience in delivering on the enviro agenda than anyone on council will know how to deal with. He's trouble.
But, if he is an attorney for the EPA, how can he not recuse himself everytime a development or land use project come before the Council? Wouldn't his day job pre-empt his civic duty?
Vreeland 2.0
Recusal is voluntary and can become very political in the wrong hands. Campbell would be the wrong hands.
If he is an epa attorney he is the perfect candidate to help continue Agenda 21 and implement the second phase. Block all development and stack people in housing near train tracks. Nancy Hall and friends support the communist Agenda 21.
Then why didn't Vreeland recluse his self from the Pedro Point Bridge, The city purchase of the lots for his trail system? The negotiations with Cal-trans to give the city the lot in front of Pedro Point Shopping Center for a trail head?
pot kettle black?
If there was an actual conflict, and there may not have been according to the actual guidelines,
Vreeland could choose not to recuse. Recusal can be manipulated for political and personal reasons.
@1004 you really need to research judicial recusal to understand. The FPPC has good info on it. Check their website. It's about economic interest. There is quite a bit of personal latitude in determining material/important economic interest when the vote is about something simply near an official's home or business. Some are more cautious, some are not, some are gunshy, some are just being political.
The rules are enforced quick and loose in Pacifica
I can understand a recusal when there is a very direct economic interest/benefit to the councilmember. But when a councilmember's benefit is not tangible, is possibly purely speculative, and it is shared by many others, then recusal seems unjustified and a failure to carry out the duties of the office.
Post a Comment