Stop The Millennium Group Makes a Difference
When Stop the Millennium won is case against the City of Los Angeles and Millennium Partners at the Second District Court of Appeal (Division 3), Millennium’s EIR was invalidated because it violated the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) when the project description was found to be “not stable and finite.”
This will require developers to be much more specific, rather than accepting a giveaway to the City. This is a great benefit, and is a corrective of the process.
From the increase in funding to complete the mapping of dangerous surface rupture faults to the focus on hardening Los Angeles’ water supply infrastructure — has been due to Stop the Millennium’s activities.
Because of Stop the Millennium’s highlighting geological dangers, Governor Jerry Brown gave the California Geologic Survey much needed money to complete the mapping of the State’s Alquist-Priolo Zones. The job had been languishing for years because of inadequate personnel. With the shot in the arm, the mapping was able to continue after falling out in the 1990s.
Stop the Millennium still stands by its goals:
At the February 2014 meeting of the State Mining & Geology Board, we proposed the following reforms to the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Safety Act:
1) Give State Geologist subpoena power to get all geotechnical reports performed by a state licensed geologist.
2) Give State Geologist the right of access to all seismic testing sites.
3) Give State Geologist power to initiate their own geotechnical studies on public or private property to complete AP mapping.
4) Increase minimum distance from a surface rupture fault of a habitable building to 150 feet or more.
———————————
Community Groups’ Attorney Challenges City’s Defective Determination Letters:
RE: VTTM-71837-CN-1A and CPC-2008-3440-VZC-CUB-CU-ZV-HD
Mr. Williams:
Our office received the above-referenced determination letters issued by the Los Angeles City Planning Commission on April 27, 2013.
VTTM-71837 Determination
The Determination Letter for VTTM-71837-CN-1A states on page 8, Paragraph 14(b) that: “The design and development of the structure shall be in substantial conformance with the Development Regulations attached to CPC-2008-3440-VZC-CUB-CU-ZV-HD and CPC-2013-103-DA. Paragraph 14(c) contains a similar provision that refers to the Development Regulations.
On page 8, Paragraph 14(a) states: “Limit the proposed development to the following uses, and/or as described in the Land Use Equivalency Program pursuant to CPC-2008-3440-VZC-CUB-CU-ZV-HD and CPC-2013-103-DA.”
Thus, in order to fully understand the action of the City Planning Commission in VTTM 71837-CN-1A, a person receiving the Determination Letter must refer to the CPC Determination to review the proposed Development Regulations and Land Use Equivalency Program.
CPC Determination
The CPC Determination Letter on page Q1 in multiple places refers to the “attached” Exhibit D (the Land Use Equivalency Program) and Exhibit C (the Millennium Project Development Regulations). (The CPC Determination Letter makes no apparent reference to any Exhibits A or B.) The detailed Land Use Equivalency Program and the Millennium Project Development Regulations contain substantive provisions of the CPC’s decision that are supposed to be attachments to the Determination Letter.
Our review of the copies of the two Determination Letters, and those received by other members of the interested public show that the City failed to attached these critical portions of the CPC Determination Letters. We have no idea if the Land Use Equivalency Program or the Development Regulations adopted by the CPC are the same or different from prior iterations of those documents that were originally proposed as part of a Development Agreement now publicly withdrawn by the Developer and presumably not considered by the City.
Without attaching the precise version of these documents that the CPC supposedly approved as part of its substantive decision, it is impossible for the interested public to determine what the CPC is approving, whether or not the interested public objects to what has been approved, and how to intelligently formulate an appeal of the CPC’s decision if one was trying to formulate one. For these reasons, both Determination Letters, which expressly refer to and rely upon substantive portions of the decision omitted from the materials mailed to the interested public, fail to constitute constitutionally valid notice of the actions of the CPC.
On this basis, we demand that the CPC immediately give the public notice of rescission of the two Determination Letters and issue full and complete determination letters in accordance with concepts of constitutionally required notice of the CPC’s entire decision.
Please contact me as soon as possible to inform whether or not the City will cure and correct this serious public notice problem.
Robert P. Silverstein, Esq.
The Silverstein Law Firm, APC
215 North Marengo Avenue, 3rd Floor
Pasadena, CA 91101-1504
Telephone: (626) 449-4200
Facsimile: (626) 449-4205
Email: Robert@RobertSilversteinLaw.com
Website: www.RobertSilversteinLaw.com