 |
|||||||||
|
|||||||||
 |
 |
|||||
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
massive amounts of traffic, and this may have had something to do with their refusal to consider alternatives -- such as land they already own in less sensitive areas. What sort of curriculuum would it take to draw that many car-trips off the freeway? This increased traffic is only the beginning of the impacts. Lighting for night games, service parking, visitor and community uses, noise and clutter. As a rule of thumb, it takes $2 per signature to pay professional signature gatherers, or about $6,000. Lawyers fees and setup were substantial, no doubt. In addition, JSERRA made alliances with Bill Campbell and new Anaheim Mayor Curt Pringle. They made legal contributions of about $20,000 each to 3 council campaigns that took positions in favor of JSERRA during the election: Joe Soto, reputedly a local landscaper, Hart, and Swerdlin. THE VOTE: Whether to rescind the previous ordinance, and to re-adopt it with some changes to comply with City Atty.'s view of the Court decision. EFFECT: Trying to avoid CEQA review for the downzoning to school. Alternative would have been to submit to voters. CEQA still required for site plan. In the vote, these 3 were joined by Mayor Gelff. Only former Mayor Bathgate raised concerns about traffic and legal expenses and voted not to adopt the rezoning plan. ------------------------------------------------------ SWERDLIN:
"better than previous proposals, 15% signed..." There is a bias toward development in our laws, and Gelff echoes this. Any open stretch of land is vulnerable to construction. BATHGATE: "should be balance of land use...pay attention to impacts on local residents...don't short-cut public participation...not only does this short-circuit CEQA, but it significantly weakens General Plan protections for quality of life throughout the city...should be put up for election of the people...". The Council vote was 4-1, but former Mayor Bathgate voted positively -- FOR PUTTING IT TO A VOTE OF THE PEOPLE! ----------------------PREVIOUS PUBLIC COMMENT PUBLIC COMMENT: There was little point in testifying, because one could divine how the vote would go once Swerdlin and Soto were elected. Still, some important points were made, and the matter is obviously headed for more litigation -- vitiating Soto's comment about his vote helping to avoid litigation expense. 28: David Belardez, who supervised the quiet removal of 650 to 800 ancestors, mostly juveniles, from ORA-64 for the Irvine Co: "Been the Most Likely Descendant on this site for many years...done 99.9% of all reburials in Orange County for Toll Roads, for Irvine, Mission Viejo...most won't compromise at all, JSERRA is going above and beyond the law [yes he actually used that phrase!]...capped sites, know about the 3 ancient villages...", sounded almost insulted, or chagrinned. 27: Tony Forester, "it's not a for-profit school...private property rights...the real sacred site is up the hill a half mile..." 26: Stocher, "support JSERRA, watching this vacant property, they worked with local Juanenos...view corridor maintained...signed initiative, holding you to it...came on my own, not paid" 25:
Lucien Austin, "why are the Native Americans coming out about this
now [when the property has been abused for so long], even a dog house
would cause more traffic, JSERRA is sensitive". 24: Steve Cabetti, SJC, disputed city atty.'s interpretation of the lawsuit judgment, recalled Oct. 15 when he predicted we would be at this point "...both alternative are not legal, at this point, the deadline for the vote is passed, and you are still not able to adopt the JSERRA plan...don't understand why the city is aggressive in one direction [JSERRA]..." 23: Rick Mendez, Cap. Bch, reburial requires putting ancestors back exactly where they were [not movement to another site] "our way of life is to be shared...could benefit all" 22: Jerry Nieblas (sp?) Dana Pt. "grassy area is OK, there are burial sites all over, this is zoned for HS" (FOR JSERRA) 21: Rebecca Robles, S. Clem, heads Sierra Club Sacred Sites Task Force, "once destroyed, these sacred sites are gone forever...ORA 855 [Putiidhem] has been called unique by State Office of Historic Preservation (SHPO)...there are human remains, don't disturb them...alternative center..." 20: Paula Steinbone SJC, "valuable contributions of NA, put it to a vote, spirit of the mountains calls to us, this is important for the children...spititulity important..." 19: Margaret Ollinger, pointed out certain irregular items in the proposal and land use violations. 18: Jackie Nunez, SJC descendant, most called upon story teller in the elementary schools, SB41 requires 3rd grade teachers to know about the NA in the area, use Heritage Park in Sta. Fe Springs as a guide, history is important, let the people vote on the issue..." 17: Lon (?) SJC resident, find a compromise that works for both parties, another election would split the community... 16: Tribal Anthropologist, pointed out that, contrary to Gelff's aspertion, many of the JSERRA backers were from out of town. What is happening is typical historically, split the tribe, then both are left holding the bag. Let the voters decide. Council accepting the money seems unethical, if not illegal. JSERRA students would not come from SJC. 15: Wendy Brothman, SJC neighbor of project, signed petition, was deceived, council should allow us to vote, noise and traffic impacts are worrisome, also playing fields...--Doug Korthof, Seal Beach, "the initiative was incomplete and non-specific, if people had seen the development deal they might not have signed. SJC is a special place, maybe it has to do with the Native American sacred sites. A cultural center would be an asset. Although it seems, contrary to Mayor Gelff's statement, most testifying are SJC residents, not outsiders, there IS a lot of outside interest that would make the cultural center an asset to the city. Perhaps in the past, we over-entitled, should instead have saved just a small part for this memorial. JSERRA would be a magnet school -- not drawing from SJC, instead, put a cultural center to a vote of the people" --Lisa Rosen, Seal Beach, supports Shilo and the tribe, asks for the matter to come to a vote. 12: Rachel Meyers (sp?) Angeles Chapter of the Sierra Club Sacred Sites Task Force will consider joining further lawsuits. Pointed out that 3 members received funding from JSERRA, and suggested they recuse themselves. 11: J. Perry, supporter of Belardez (FOR JSERRA) 10: Curt Chavez, Montebello, tribal archaeologist, a working monitor, explaind the cultural values and the continuity of the Tribe and his roots in the culture. 09: Gail Prothro, SJC, serious concerns about sweeping amendments to the General Plan, an important part of our history is at stake here... 08: Bob (?) No digging should occur here, should be deed restricted, native plant garden at most should be allowed, the interpretive center is a real alternative and should be considered. 07: Doc Robbins (La Mesa): Gas stations leaking petro products, not a place for kids to be running around, should be remediated. 06: Clair Silva, SJC, Prof. of Anthropology, so much was taken away by lies and theft, leave them this much, a swimming pool requires digging. 05: Michelle Flores, SJC, signed the initiative, feels deceived, cultural center would have tremendous tourist value and give some equality to the story told...let the people decide... 04: Arnie Culbertson (?) should be representative government, (as another speaker) this is too big for the council, put it on the ballot, don't believe lawyer Ramirez. 03: John Wilson, representing the landowners, spoke against the project. They have tried unsuccessfully to negotiate with JSERRA + city, got no satisfaction from either. Filed lawsuit, does NOT want the construction. In a bizarre twist of fate, the landowner seems unable to stop it. Apparently, JSERRA bought the master lease, giving them certain rights for a specified period of time, and the argument seems to be whether those rights include building to entitlements. This startling testimony should have alone brought the Council to understand that the project is tainted and must be adjudicated by some higher power -- such as the courts, or a vote of the people. 02: Tammy Kurz, Laguna Beach, pointed out that she had taught for a JSERRA school, thinks initiative was deceptive, and promoted the idea of the cultural center. 01: Damien Shilo read a prepared statement positioning the Tribe he represents for the further lawsuits the SJC Council has now brought forth upon itself. It may be noted that the existing lawsuit, which the Juanenos and their allies WON, has differing interpretations about the one-page decision. It would seem that the Juanenos will now file suit on the latest Council action, based upon the city atty's agreement with JSERRA lawyer Ramirez that the problem was amendment of the original initiative by the development agreement. This lawsuit could drag on for months. No matter the result of that lawsuit, which impinges on the entire CEQA process, there will be additional challenges for the site plan. As one of the Council members pointed out, significant and expensive mitigation will be required for traffic impacts alone. May be a gold-mine for lawyers for years to come. How much simpler, and cheaper, to give up the JSERRA plan and for the Council to help the Juanenos, and the landowner, apply for CALTRANS and other grants to purchase the property for a valuable cultural resources and interpretive center? You can see one such plan on http://Putiidhem.org/concep12.jpg although many Juaneno officials would prefer that not even a native plant garden be placed on the site. An objective observer would be excited, it seems, by the prospect of retaining the village site as enriching 3rd grade curriculuum. Someone as skilled as Mark Acuna could assist with the native plant palette, and the area could retains something of the special quality of this creek bed between the highlands of San Clemente and Dana Point. Two centuries and more previously, this must have been a thriving, rich and culturally significant region, a borderline, perhaps, between the Puvungna rites and the populous tribes around what is now San Diego. Rationalizing the position of the few Juanenos backing JSERRA: 1. They claim that JSERRA would cap the graves, leaving them undisturbed. But the only real barrier to further digging would be a deed restriction by JSERRA precluding any further development -- and JSERRA does not seem to be willing to do this. Hence, one is left with this idea as based solely on good intentions, which elsewhere has not stood up to the test of time. 2. They claim that nothing more could be done, this is a better deal than other developments. But as Rebecca Robles stated, only 30% of the sacred sites are left, and what's left becomes ever more precious. 3. They claim that a life-sized statue, and a freshman curriculuum on Juanenos, is adequate compensation, and that most of the graves are on the south side. But how a curriculuum is presented is all-important, and how much better it would be if there were a visible interpretive center. The students that would be drawn to JSERRA might look at the genocide as a jingoistic triumph, if presented one way. Further, if this were really important to JSERRA, how come they have not done it so far with their existing students? JSERRA does not have a record of paying high salaries, allowing unions, or any kind of cultural sensitivity, from the rumors floating around. Can anyone prove otherwise? /Doug Back to T.O.C. 3
|
|