No! This behind the door, fast track is so bad. I am very, very disappointed in our city 'leaders'. 20 acres!! No, our management contract says no infringement into Forest Park. I do not understand how this can be pursued. This city council government is so dysfunctional, opaque 'refusal' of accountability of non-profits using our tax funds, stupid severance packages, soft on allowing trash stewing on streets-clean-repeat. This is our city, our taxes!! Sorry to be so upset, however we all should be. The park thing is one breaking point, I hike and hug a tree in FP at least three days a week, if not more. (actually the garbage cyclical cleanup with no end game broke me too). I participated in opposing pge's plan of harming FP (and they had viable alternative route separate from FP) as well as so many others!! Isn't this illegal? So what do we do!?
The bar was already very low, but the current mayor/city council have to be setting some sort of record for largest amount of gross incompetence/bad decision making in a mere two year’s time. This is why local elections are so important.
A 1940's easement, followed by a two year (2022-2024) planning process by PG&E,,,here we are four years later (now on higher alert for the need for more electricity). We do not need any more evidence of corporate or municipality disfunction. Who may win? The Lawyers. The campaign contributors.
Who loses? The environment? City residents if the "more expensive" route is necessitated.
PGE conducts long-range utility planning and almost certainly already knows what these "future project phases" entail in detail. The city shouldn't let PGE piecemeal this project by getting a "first phase" approved, and then come back later to CLEARCUT the rest. Instead, the city should require that all phases be submitted together as a single, complete package as part of this new application, so the full scope and cumulative impact can be evaluated up front.
"The newly revised PGE application involves payment of $250,000 to the city to hire a third-party consultant prior to pursuing future project phases estimated to consume an additional 15 acres of Forest Park."
In response to Carole Hardy’s statement that “the public believes this project was stopped” by the City Council vote: that may have been the public perception, but legally the issue was not necessarily over.
The original application was approved by a hearings officer. Conservation groups appealed and won at City Council. PGE then used its own right to appeal. Mediation and a revised application are normal parts of that process. Citizens, nonprofits and businesses all have the right to challenge government decisions.
Winning one round does not end the other side’s legal rights. The real questions are whether the revised proposal addresses the original concerns, whether it meets all land-use and environmental rules, whether the mediation was fair, and whether the public gets a real chance to be heard.
No! This behind the door, fast track is so bad. I am very, very disappointed in our city 'leaders'. 20 acres!! No, our management contract says no infringement into Forest Park. I do not understand how this can be pursued. This city council government is so dysfunctional, opaque 'refusal' of accountability of non-profits using our tax funds, stupid severance packages, soft on allowing trash stewing on streets-clean-repeat. This is our city, our taxes!! Sorry to be so upset, however we all should be. The park thing is one breaking point, I hike and hug a tree in FP at least three days a week, if not more. (actually the garbage cyclical cleanup with no end game broke me too). I participated in opposing pge's plan of harming FP (and they had viable alternative route separate from FP) as well as so many others!! Isn't this illegal? So what do we do!?
*as well as so many other citizens participated in stopping pge
The bar was already very low, but the current mayor/city council have to be setting some sort of record for largest amount of gross incompetence/bad decision making in a mere two year’s time. This is why local elections are so important.
Thank you Darcie Meihoff for your update.
A 1940's easement, followed by a two year (2022-2024) planning process by PG&E,,,here we are four years later (now on higher alert for the need for more electricity). We do not need any more evidence of corporate or municipality disfunction. Who may win? The Lawyers. The campaign contributors.
Who loses? The environment? City residents if the "more expensive" route is necessitated.
PGE conducts long-range utility planning and almost certainly already knows what these "future project phases" entail in detail. The city shouldn't let PGE piecemeal this project by getting a "first phase" approved, and then come back later to CLEARCUT the rest. Instead, the city should require that all phases be submitted together as a single, complete package as part of this new application, so the full scope and cumulative impact can be evaluated up front.
"The newly revised PGE application involves payment of $250,000 to the city to hire a third-party consultant prior to pursuing future project phases estimated to consume an additional 15 acres of Forest Park."
In response to Carole Hardy’s statement that “the public believes this project was stopped” by the City Council vote: that may have been the public perception, but legally the issue was not necessarily over.
The original application was approved by a hearings officer. Conservation groups appealed and won at City Council. PGE then used its own right to appeal. Mediation and a revised application are normal parts of that process. Citizens, nonprofits and businesses all have the right to challenge government decisions.
Winning one round does not end the other side’s legal rights. The real questions are whether the revised proposal addresses the original concerns, whether it meets all land-use and environmental rules, whether the mediation was fair, and whether the public gets a real chance to be heard.
It seems to me the system is working as designed.