E-Mails on Oil Project
Read the E-Mail that tells us how the Oil Project started on October 18, 2006. It started between Mayor Bob Henderson, City Manager Steve Helvey, Matrix Consultant Mac McFarland, Matrix VP Mike McCaskey and Matrix Geologist. |
|
|
E-Mails between City of Whittier and Matrix Oil 2008. |
|
|
E-Mails between City and Matrix Oil on the Oil Project 2008. |
|
E-Mails between City and Matrix about Letter of intent. This was done almost one year before lease signed 2007. |
|
E-Mail below to Kim Barlow Assistant City Attorney from Geralyn Skapik Open Space Legal Defense Fund Attorney
"Henderson then went on
to insult the residents of Whittier, stating that he does not believe
the voters of Whittier are sophisticated or intelligent enough to review
the "1,000-page environmental impact report."
Ms. Barlow-
I appreciate you responding to my email. However,
based upon the actions to date exhibited by the City officials during
this process, I am not surprised that the City now is effectually
thwarting public participation. According to the article in the
Whittier Daily News, Mr. Henderson
made it quite clear that Whittier is not a "direct democracy" and that
this "process" is, "extremely complex." Mr. Henderson then went on to
insult the residents of Whittier, stating that he does not believe the
voters of Whittier are
sophisticated or intelligent enough to review
the "1,000-page environmental impact report that is detailed and complex
with more than 1,000 comment on the report." Henderson then
rationalized his actions by stating that Whittier is a "representative
government for a reason" and that the voters have "elected people who
are suppose to take the time to go over a project. We also have staff
input but the public wouldn't have any of that."
It is clear
the City does not have the required commitment to public participation.
Mr. Henderson's comment are opposite of the intent behind CEQA. The
purpose of public participation is to hear the public and not disregard
the voices of the people. Mr. Henderson has chosen to preemptively
discount public comment and solely rely on the comments of the applicant
and staff, thus violating CEQA.
Mr. Henderson, the City Council and the City Attorney's office is quite aware the residence of Whittier and Los Angeles County have hired Claremont
Land
Group and Pareto Planning and Environmental Services, to "represent
their interests" and to review and analyze the EIR and related
documentation. We have been retained by many Whittier residence because
they no longer have faith in the "representative body" that they
elected to represent their interest. For Mr. Henderson to dismiss the
organizational chart for the City, which places the residents first, is
evidence that he has no interest in listening to the majority that is so
vehemently opposed
to this project. Indeed he has stated publicly,
numerous times, that he has a "gentlemen's agreement" with the other
members of the council that if the
project cannot be carried out
safely, they will not vote for it. Stated affirmatively, this serial
agreement is that the Council members will vote for the project if it
can be done "safely." It is uncertain what Mr. Henderson's definition
of "safely" is, but evidently it includes a project that has 6
significant environmental impacts that cannot be mitigated.
Clearly,
this issue has been pre-determined and the public is being denied the
ability to respond in kind, in a manner that is simple, concise and
understandable for all participants. The public cannot influence the
Council's vote if the project is not thoroughly vetted.
Given
that it is Mr. Henderson's position, that we should have individuals who
are experienced reviewing these documents, present to the Planning
Commission, we are prepared to present a video outlining the issues our
experts have discovered relating to the FEIR and the new "amended"
project proposal. This presentation is representative of OSLDF
members. We will have 10 people announce their names and addresses
before the presentation and then play the video. There will be no
concern of these individual wanting to make further statements as they
fully understand that they cede their time to us and I will confirm
that position before the video is
played.
It is evident that
the project before the Planning Commission has been significantly
changed. The public has had less than 6 days to review these
significant
changes hidden in the revised FEIR and provide a response. Even though
the public has had less than one week to review the revised FEIR, the
City
has elected to forgo recirculation of this revised project. By
thwarting our ability to disclose facts at the hearing during public
comments on this revised project, you are in violation of CEQA.
PRC Sect. 21177 holds:
(a)
An action or proceeding shall not be brought pursuant to Section 21167
unless the alleged grounds for noncompliance with this division were
presented to the public agency orally or in writing by any person during
the public comment period provided by this division or prior to the
close of the public hearing on the project before the issuance of the
notice of determination.
(b) A person shall not maintain an
action or proceeding unless that person objected to the approval of the
project orally or in writing during the public comment period provided
by this division or prior to the close of the public hearing on the
project before the filing of the notice of determination pursuant to
Sections 21108 and
21152.
PRC Sect. 21177 mandates that we provide public comment and you are in
essence thwarting the public's our ability to do so.
We
will be happy to provide you with a copy of our video at the hearing
tonight and we will plan on putting on our presentation during the
public comment period which commences on Thursday evening.
Please ensure that the video/audio equipment utilized by staff and
Matrix tonight is made equally available to the public during the
public comment period.
In addition, we have reviewed the Urgency Ordinance that was passed by the City Council on Monday morning.
It is our position that the Planning Commission is illegally
constituted and thus any decision made by this Commission would be
remanded by a court for reconsideration before a properly constituted
Planning Commission.
Geralyn Skapik
Geralyn L. Skapik, Attorney at Law
CLAREMONT LAND GROUP