|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
Menlo Park resident Peter Joshua filed a lawsuit on Oct. 24 in San Mateo County Superior Court against the San Francisquito Creek Joint Powers Authority and its board, claiming that on Sept. 26, it skipped a step in the approval process when it opted to move forward with its plan to replace the Pope-Chaucer Bridge, among other flood control measures.
That day, the San Francisquito Creek Joint Powers Authority board of directors voted unanimously to certify the final environmental impact report for what’s known as the “Upstream of Highway 101 Project,” the second significant effort undertaken by the authority since a February 1998 flood caused severe damage to neighborhoods near the creek in Palo Alto, East Palo Alto and Menlo Park.
The $9 million project would replace the Pope-Chaucer Bridge, remove concrete from the channel in three areas between Newell Road and Euclid Street and replace a wooden parapet extension at University Avenue and Woodland Avenue.
The suit claims that the joint powers authority should have declared that mitigations or alternatives to reduce or eliminate the project’s expected environmental impacts are infeasible before it approved the flood control plan.
Instead, Joshua states, the board “improperly skipped this step.”
Joshua is represented by William Parkin and Yuchih Pearl Kan of Wittwer Parkin LLP in Aptos.
In a letter to the joint powers authority, Parkin said that the project’s “Statement of Overriding Considerations” – a document that an agency must approve, basically finding that a project’s planned benefits outweigh its environmental impacts – did not contain required findings. In addition, he claims, the environmental impact report for the project failed to contain a reasonable range of alternatives and “improperly engaged in a piecemeal review of the project.”
The plan, the suit claims, will cause Joshua to “suffer irreparable and permanent injuries” and “irreparably harm the environment and will result in significant and unmitigated adverse environmental impacts,” if it is implemented.
Joshua is seeking a court order that would require the joint powers authority to set aside its approval of the flood control project and certified environmental impact report, and to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act.
In response, the joint powers authority’s board chair, Gary Kremen, told The Almanac he believes the lawsuit is frivolous. Speaking for himself and not on behalf of the authority’s board, he called the suit a “typical NIMBY action of someone who doesn’t care about his or her neighbors, including all the people (whose homes) flooded in 1998.”
He argues that the joint powers authority is trying to provide 100-year flood protection in a reasonable time, and that its environmental analysis explored 14 project alternatives and responded to many public comments.
One hundred year flood protection, he says, is to provide protection against a flood event that has a 1 in 100 chance of being met or surpassed in a given year. With changing water patterns in the climate and the Searsville Dam continuing to fill with sediment, he added, the project has taken on a new urgency.
This resident had more than ample opportunity to voice his concerns and engage with the JPA in development of this plan. Now his lawsuit will extend the period of flooding risk for hundreds of his neighbors. I hope everyone will let him know how they feel about his action.
One person is doing his best to thwart a very basic project that should have been done years ago.
I hope someone couter-sues him for a reason as drummed up as his.
What a jerk.
Enough already:
The gentleman who filed the suit did, in fact, make comments to the Draft EIR and had his attorney file comments also. The JPA responses were dismissive and legally questionable. In addition the two permitting agencies for this project the California State Water Resources Board and the State Fish and Game filed comprehensive comments and the JPA ignored these agencies and went ahead and certified the EIR. The JPA takes the position that said permitting agencies will be responded to when the Board decides to do so. I don’t think this is going to sit well with these State agencies.
Do not presume that the fellow who filed the law suit did nothing and only filed a law suit after the certification of the EIR decided as a protest. You might ask yourself why the Board didn’t respond to the concerns of the Water Board and Fish & Game.
Furthermore, the EIR stated that upstream retention of flood waters on Stanford land was an option that the JPA should explore. Leave it to Stanford to say no to the idea and refuse a preliminary on site visit by the Creek JPA biologist to assess the viability of upstream retention.
This is the same Stanford University who will pay no property taxes on its Menlo Park El Camino Real 400,000 sf development. There’s a right way and a wrong way to process these projects and make decisions. Thankfully the law suit will bring to light the deficiencies of this particular process.
This is the very definition of it, 100% NIMBY. He does not want the bridge PERIOD. Watch and see the target move if they dismiss this particular issue.
The rest of the citizenry thank you(sarcasm) Mr Peter Joshua.
“Furthermore, the EIR stated that upstream retention of flood waters on Stanford land was an option that the JPA should explore. Leave it to Stanford to say no to the idea and refuse a preliminary on site visit by the Creek JPA biologist to assess the viability of upstream retention.”
Actually Stanford representatives were ask to and then refused to give upstream access at a public board meeting of the JPA.
There will not be 100-year flood protection from the plan whose EIR was certified by the JPA unless retention basins are constructed on Stanford land. The JPA Chair is intentionally overstating the benefits of the project. He knows better.
During the Draft EIR discussions Stanford refused access by hydrologists and others to identify characteristics of retention basin sites. Stanford appears to be disinclined to cooperate in building a solution to the flooding problem.
Despite the channelization and deforestation of the creek and its immediate surroundings, there is little prospect of this project attaining 100-year protection or exemption from flood insurance for property owners in the flood zone for the foreseeable future. Yes, this means property owners with mortgages will still be on the hook for flood insurance.