Groundbreaking greenhouse gas case in California
Amanda Monchamp and Melanie Sengupta
Holland & Knight LLP
October 26 2011
Supreme Court Denies Review and Depublication of Case Establishing Significance Thresholds for Greenhouse Gas Emissions Under CEQA
On October 19, 2011, the California Supreme Court denied the petition for review and requests for depublication of the Court of Appeal, Fourth District’s decision in Citizens for Responsible Equitable Environmental Development v. City of Chula Vista (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 327 (CREED).
CREED captured great attention because of the only four published cases that address climate change, it is the first one to address the pivotal issue of a lead agency’s analysis of significance thresholds for greenhouse gas emissions under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). CREED, along with several notable environmental advocacy groups and the Attorney General of the State of California, sought review as well as depublication to overturn the Court of Appeal’s sanctioning of a lead agency’s use of the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB 32) as the significance threshold to assess greenhouse gas emissions and climate change impacts under CEQA. The critical take-away of the CREED decision is that the lead agency has the discretion to set a significance threshold, and it is proper to use AB 32 and the “business as usual” methodology for assessing the significance of impacts from greenhouse gas emissions.
City's "Business-As-Usual" Threshold OK For Evaluating Greenhouse Gas Emissions Under CEQA
Jeffrey W. Forrest
Ashley T. Hirano
Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP - San Diego Office
July 20, 2011
Citizens for Responsible Equitable Environmental Development ("CREED") v. City of Chula Vista, Docket No. D05779
In this clean-tech era, Citizens for Responsible Equitable Environmental Development ("CREED") v. City of Chula Vista marks only the third time that a court has published a case addressing greenhouse gases in California. In CREED, the City of Chula Vista certified a mitigated negative declaration ("MND") and approved development permits for a project that would demolish an existing Target store, a smog check facility, and a small market, and construct in its place a larger Target store. CREED filed suit, claiming that CEQA required the City to certify a full environmental impact report because the project would have a significant environmental impact on hazardous materials, air quality, particulate matter and ozone, and greenhouse gas emissions. While the court held that an EIR was likely required for other reasons, the court also held that, to demonstrate the project’s consistency with the GHG emissions reduction goals established by California's "Global Warming Solutions Act" (AB 32), the City had properly relied upon evidence the project’s emissions were below the GHG threshold of significance. The City established this threshold of significance using what has become known as the "Business-As-Usual" ("BAU") method. The court also held that the City properly relied on the thresholds of significance in the South Coast Air Quality Management District's CEQA Air Quality Handbook to conclude that the project's air quality impacts (particulate matter and ozone) were not cumulatively considerable even though the San Diego air basin is in non-attainment for particulate matter pollution.
...Finally, even though the percentage reduction from BAU necessary to meet AB 32's emissions reduction target has varied from time to time, agency to agency, and report to report, this court's decision indicates that when a public agency chooses to rely on a particular source's BAU percentage from a particular expert or agency report, it is important for the lead agency to require the project to meet at least that specific percentage if the lead agency's purpose is to demonstrate there is evidence the project is consistent with AB 32's reduction targets. To require less breaks the logical chain in the threshold and normally would require both a finding that further mitigation was infeasible and a statement of overriding considerations. Here, the permittee and the City were fortunate that the air quality report demonstrated that the project would achieve and exceed the report's stated 25 percent BAU standard.
Showing posts with label City of Chula Vista. Show all posts
Showing posts with label City of Chula Vista. Show all posts
Saturday, July 28, 2012
Monday, January 17, 2011
Googins, Faigin battle for first city attorney in Chula Vista
Googins, Faigin face tough battle for first city attorney
By Khari Johnson, SDNN
June 8, 2010
SDNN
Up to now, the city attorney in Chula Vista was appointed by the city council but Proposition Q — a 2008 ballot measure — changed city charter to make it an elected position and Chula Vistans will go to the polls Tuesday to choose between Glen Googins and Robert Faigin as their first elected city attorney.
With a salary of more than $200,000, the city attorney will be the highest paid position in Chula Vista city government.
Both Googins and Faigin promise to follow the rule of law, claim to be independent and accuse his opponent of being beholden to special interests trying to influence City Hall.
They see the position as an advisor, not policy maker, and share concerns expressed by members of the City Council and Proposition Q opponents that the office has the potential to become politicized and impact legal advice offered to the council and city departments.
But that’s also why both claim he should be elected, not his opponent.
“Obviously, now theoretically they’re more responsible to the people than the city council members,” said current City Attorney Bart Miesfeld, “but day to day responsibilities won’t change,” said
Faigin, a resident of Lakeside, has been the county sheriff’s chief counsel since 2002 and decided to run after members of the South County sheriff’s office told him no qualified candidates sought the position.
Googins opened his private practice handling real estate and development issues in 2004 after 11 years of similar work in the city attorney’s office. Disagreements with then City Attorney Ann Moore led Googins to resign, in the process receiving a $175,000 severance package.
Joseph Casas, the candidate endorsed by the San Diego County Democratic Party, dropped out of the race in March and is currently representing Police Chief David Bejarano against accusations of fraud by a former business partner.
“The downside to turning it into an elected position is that instantly the developers, Corky McMillan, all of those people start pumping money into campaigns because they want to influence city politics,” Faigin said.
By the May 27 financial filing deadline, Googins had raised $33,000 from 100 donors, including teachers, border patrol agents and city residents, but also several lawyers, real estate developers. In addition he raised nearly $1,000 from executives from The Corky McMillin Companies, including company president and CEO Mark McMillin.
Googins endorsers include the Chula Vista Police Officer and Firefighter Associations, former City Attorney John Kaheny, state assemblymember Mary Salas, County Supervisor Greg Cox and The Republican Party of San Diego County, though it is a non-partisan race.
About one-third of donors to Googin’s campaign are Chula Vista residents.
“I’m not promising anyone anything,” Googins said. “Just because I’ve represented developers doesn’t mean I’m going to favor any developers. When I’m with the city, the city’s my client.”...
By Khari Johnson, SDNN
June 8, 2010
SDNN
Up to now, the city attorney in Chula Vista was appointed by the city council but Proposition Q — a 2008 ballot measure — changed city charter to make it an elected position and Chula Vistans will go to the polls Tuesday to choose between Glen Googins and Robert Faigin as their first elected city attorney.
With a salary of more than $200,000, the city attorney will be the highest paid position in Chula Vista city government.
Both Googins and Faigin promise to follow the rule of law, claim to be independent and accuse his opponent of being beholden to special interests trying to influence City Hall.
They see the position as an advisor, not policy maker, and share concerns expressed by members of the City Council and Proposition Q opponents that the office has the potential to become politicized and impact legal advice offered to the council and city departments.
But that’s also why both claim he should be elected, not his opponent.
“Obviously, now theoretically they’re more responsible to the people than the city council members,” said current City Attorney Bart Miesfeld, “but day to day responsibilities won’t change,” said
Faigin, a resident of Lakeside, has been the county sheriff’s chief counsel since 2002 and decided to run after members of the South County sheriff’s office told him no qualified candidates sought the position.
Googins opened his private practice handling real estate and development issues in 2004 after 11 years of similar work in the city attorney’s office. Disagreements with then City Attorney Ann Moore led Googins to resign, in the process receiving a $175,000 severance package.
Joseph Casas, the candidate endorsed by the San Diego County Democratic Party, dropped out of the race in March and is currently representing Police Chief David Bejarano against accusations of fraud by a former business partner.
“The downside to turning it into an elected position is that instantly the developers, Corky McMillan, all of those people start pumping money into campaigns because they want to influence city politics,” Faigin said.
By the May 27 financial filing deadline, Googins had raised $33,000 from 100 donors, including teachers, border patrol agents and city residents, but also several lawyers, real estate developers. In addition he raised nearly $1,000 from executives from The Corky McMillin Companies, including company president and CEO Mark McMillin.
Googins endorsers include the Chula Vista Police Officer and Firefighter Associations, former City Attorney John Kaheny, state assemblymember Mary Salas, County Supervisor Greg Cox and The Republican Party of San Diego County, though it is a non-partisan race.
About one-third of donors to Googin’s campaign are Chula Vista residents.
“I’m not promising anyone anything,” Googins said. “Just because I’ve represented developers doesn’t mean I’m going to favor any developers. When I’m with the city, the city’s my client.”...
Sidelining of Chula Vista councilwoman questioned
Sidelining of Chula Vista councilwoman questioned
City attorney says she has a conflict on police contracts because her adult son is a lieutenant
SDUT
By Tanya Sierra
January 13, 2011
New Chula Vista Councilwoman Patricia Aguilar has a son on the police force, a relationship that has become a city issue amid tense labor negotiations.
Aguilar has been asked by the city’s attorney to stay on the sidelines for decisions involving the police union as her son is Lt. Phil Collum, 40, even though the two do not share a home or finances.
The city wants police to contribute nine percent of their salary to their pensions and forgo a six percent previously-agreed-upon raise. The move would save $2.5 million annually amid a budget crunch.
The city might have to lay off 24 low-seniority cops if police don’t give in. Most of the city’s other employees have agreed to contribute to their own pensions and adjust their pay.
Critics are concerned there may be political motivations for the legal advice concerning contract negotiations.
“I can understand how management would be concerned but the attorney should not be jaded by that kind of perspective,” Councilman Steve Castaneda said. “To come to that sort of harsh and extreme decision to disqualify an elected City Council member on facts that don’t seem to be germane to this situation, I think it is problematic.”
Three members of the council have reservations about the city attorney’s legal advice — Aguilar, Castaneda and Councilman Rudy Ramirez.
Ramirez notes that his brother is on the police force, and that’s never been deemed a legal or ethical issue because the two don’t live together or mix finances.
“I asked, ‘If Pat has a conflict, then why not me?’ and I was told that there was no conflict for me because he was my brother as opposed to being my son,” Ramirez said. “You don’t negotiate by concocting some legal position to affect the negotiations. Especially a labor negotiation where we’re going to have to live together and work together.”
City Attorney Glen Googins, also elected in November, issued the advice letter suggesting Aguilar abstain on police labor issues.
Googins acknowledges that Aguilar has no conflict under the state’s Government Code, but he relies instead on a 2009 Attorney General’s opinion that outlines slightly different rules under common law. That doctrine has a broader prohibition against participation in government decisions that might affect personal interests.
The 2009 opinion found a conflict of interest for a redevelopment agency board member whose son had a corporation seeking a contract with his mother’s agency. That mother and son shared an apartment.
Aguilar, who has so far abided by Googins’ recommendation, said her circumstances are different from those in the Attorney General’s opinion because she doesn’t live with her son and they don’t mix finances. Also, she noted, he is not a direct party to a city contract she would have to approve.
“In my case, my son is affected by the issue of contract negotiation only as a part of a larger class of people affected,” she said. “One is a very direct and the other is not.”
Googins, who ran on a campaign of government transparency, refused to release his legal opinion. Googins promised voters he would make his legal opinions public. But in this case, he said, he was not releasing the document because he has not developed a protocol by which to do that.
The Watchdog obtained the advice letter through another source. It notes that Lt. Collum is a board member for the police union.
“As a board member, he is in a position to influence whether or not negotiations will occur and what direction those negotiations should take,” the opinion says.
Googins would not discuss the opinion, saying it was legal advice between him and his client...
City attorney says she has a conflict on police contracts because her adult son is a lieutenant
SDUT
By Tanya Sierra
January 13, 2011
New Chula Vista Councilwoman Patricia Aguilar has a son on the police force, a relationship that has become a city issue amid tense labor negotiations.
Aguilar has been asked by the city’s attorney to stay on the sidelines for decisions involving the police union as her son is Lt. Phil Collum, 40, even though the two do not share a home or finances.
The city wants police to contribute nine percent of their salary to their pensions and forgo a six percent previously-agreed-upon raise. The move would save $2.5 million annually amid a budget crunch.
The city might have to lay off 24 low-seniority cops if police don’t give in. Most of the city’s other employees have agreed to contribute to their own pensions and adjust their pay.
Critics are concerned there may be political motivations for the legal advice concerning contract negotiations.
“I can understand how management would be concerned but the attorney should not be jaded by that kind of perspective,” Councilman Steve Castaneda said. “To come to that sort of harsh and extreme decision to disqualify an elected City Council member on facts that don’t seem to be germane to this situation, I think it is problematic.”
Three members of the council have reservations about the city attorney’s legal advice — Aguilar, Castaneda and Councilman Rudy Ramirez.
Ramirez notes that his brother is on the police force, and that’s never been deemed a legal or ethical issue because the two don’t live together or mix finances.
“I asked, ‘If Pat has a conflict, then why not me?’ and I was told that there was no conflict for me because he was my brother as opposed to being my son,” Ramirez said. “You don’t negotiate by concocting some legal position to affect the negotiations. Especially a labor negotiation where we’re going to have to live together and work together.”
City Attorney Glen Googins, also elected in November, issued the advice letter suggesting Aguilar abstain on police labor issues.
Googins acknowledges that Aguilar has no conflict under the state’s Government Code, but he relies instead on a 2009 Attorney General’s opinion that outlines slightly different rules under common law. That doctrine has a broader prohibition against participation in government decisions that might affect personal interests.
The 2009 opinion found a conflict of interest for a redevelopment agency board member whose son had a corporation seeking a contract with his mother’s agency. That mother and son shared an apartment.
Aguilar, who has so far abided by Googins’ recommendation, said her circumstances are different from those in the Attorney General’s opinion because she doesn’t live with her son and they don’t mix finances. Also, she noted, he is not a direct party to a city contract she would have to approve.
“In my case, my son is affected by the issue of contract negotiation only as a part of a larger class of people affected,” she said. “One is a very direct and the other is not.”
Googins, who ran on a campaign of government transparency, refused to release his legal opinion. Googins promised voters he would make his legal opinions public. But in this case, he said, he was not releasing the document because he has not developed a protocol by which to do that.
The Watchdog obtained the advice letter through another source. It notes that Lt. Collum is a board member for the police union.
“As a board member, he is in a position to influence whether or not negotiations will occur and what direction those negotiations should take,” the opinion says.
Googins would not discuss the opinion, saying it was legal advice between him and his client...
Monday, December 20, 2010
David Malcolm: A Plant's Power Over a Man's Life
A Plant's Power Over a Man's Life
December 19, 2010
by Liam Dillon
The man with the troubled past walked into the downtown San Diego elevator.
In itself, this incident wouldn't be notable. The man walks into lots of downtown elevators. His bank is downtown. So is his business and the top-floor, invitation-only private club he attends where you have to wear a jacket at dinnertime. He lives downtown, too.
This time people noticed. They were about to walk into a meeting on the source of one of the man's greatest triumphs and greatest troubles.
The man in question, David Malcolm, wasn't invited to the meeting.
It had been more than 10 years since Malcolm put together a $100 million deal to buy 165 acres of bay-front land without cash or credit. A man accustomed to crafting big land deals for private gain did this one for the public, snagging one of the few undeveloped urban coastal parcels in Southern California.
"It could possibly be one of the single best financial deals done in the state of California's history," Malcolm said.
It had been more than five years since the deal became the noose that hung his public career and, according to a close friend, nearly killed him. Malcolm pleaded guilty to a felony conflict of interest charge after it was revealed his company was working as a $20,000-a-month consultant for the land's tenant and he didn't leave his public position. Despite the plea, Malcolm maintained that he's innocent or, at worst, an innocent victim. He even successfully fought to get the charge reduced to a misdemeanor and the conviction expunged from his record...
Ever since he became a Chula Vista city councilman 28 years ago, Malcolm's public life and his life as a real estate wheeler and dealer rarely has been without controversy. For 20 years, all the allegations against him — including one in which he was accused of plotting arson to collect insurance money — came to nothing.
Then the power plant happened. The deal Malcolm brokered as chairman of the Port turned over the plant's operations to Duke Energy, a power company in North Carolina. Duke, in turn, hired a company Malcolm ran for $20,000 a month to try to make similar deals happen elsewhere. In essence, Malcolm began working for a major Port tenant.
Malcolm stayed on the Port, which was negotiating tax breaks for businesses, like Duke, operating on Port lands in the South Bay...
Instead, Malcolm was sentenced to 120 days in a county-lockdown facility, probation and almost $300,000 in fines and court fees. His public career was over.
But Malcolm didn't leave the issue alone.
He sued the Port unsuccessfully over its legal advice. Three years after his plea, Malcolm won a fight to get the charge reduced to a misdemeanor and the conviction expunged from his record. The topic remains raw. Malcolm speaks in extended monologues about the case's arcane details...
[Maura Larkins' comment: I have a sense that plenty of public officials betray the public trust even more than Malcolm did, and they never get called to account. For example, Juan Vargas took a lucrative job with an insurance company right when he left his job on the California Assembly insurance committee. And then the voters returned him to office a few years later!
Also, Duncan Hunter is famous for warm relationships with military contractors. I also have sympathy for Malcolm's disgust with public entity lawyers. It seems that they are often chosen because they tell officials they can help them get away with ignoring the law.]
With Malcolm was his cousin Dan Malcolm, an incoming Port commissioner from Imperial Beach. David Malcolm said that he and Dan were "very close," according to a Port memorandum on the conversation. The memo added the environmental director felt uncomfortable discussing the power plant and the conversation ended.
"This information is included only for public disclosure and to avoid any appearance that the District has been cooperating or in any way engaged with David Malcolm on matters related to the South Bay Power Plant," the Port report states.
It's not just future development that's at stake. There's about $60 million set aside to pay for the plant's demolition. The Houston-based company that currently owns the plant, Dynegy, pays the Port rent. Dynegy also is for sale.
The city of Chula Vista wants in, too. Its leaders were the ones who contacted Malcolm, Peace and other South Bay leaders over the summer to get the plant down. Malcolm and Peace helped arrange a meeting with state regulators this fall to push for the plant's closure.
"I had a choice of saying, 'Oooh, I'm not going to call David Malcolm,'" said Chula Vista Mayor Cheryl Cox. "Why wouldn't you call someone who knows as much about it as he does?"...
Last week, that ask came. A Chula Vista councilwoman emailed Malcolm, Peace and others requesting advice for responding to the Port's latest demands...
[Maura Larkins comment: Was that councilwoman Patricia Aguilar?]
December 19, 2010
by Liam Dillon
The man with the troubled past walked into the downtown San Diego elevator.
In itself, this incident wouldn't be notable. The man walks into lots of downtown elevators. His bank is downtown. So is his business and the top-floor, invitation-only private club he attends where you have to wear a jacket at dinnertime. He lives downtown, too.
This time people noticed. They were about to walk into a meeting on the source of one of the man's greatest triumphs and greatest troubles.
The man in question, David Malcolm, wasn't invited to the meeting.
It had been more than 10 years since Malcolm put together a $100 million deal to buy 165 acres of bay-front land without cash or credit. A man accustomed to crafting big land deals for private gain did this one for the public, snagging one of the few undeveloped urban coastal parcels in Southern California.
"It could possibly be one of the single best financial deals done in the state of California's history," Malcolm said.
It had been more than five years since the deal became the noose that hung his public career and, according to a close friend, nearly killed him. Malcolm pleaded guilty to a felony conflict of interest charge after it was revealed his company was working as a $20,000-a-month consultant for the land's tenant and he didn't leave his public position. Despite the plea, Malcolm maintained that he's innocent or, at worst, an innocent victim. He even successfully fought to get the charge reduced to a misdemeanor and the conviction expunged from his record...
Ever since he became a Chula Vista city councilman 28 years ago, Malcolm's public life and his life as a real estate wheeler and dealer rarely has been without controversy. For 20 years, all the allegations against him — including one in which he was accused of plotting arson to collect insurance money — came to nothing.
Then the power plant happened. The deal Malcolm brokered as chairman of the Port turned over the plant's operations to Duke Energy, a power company in North Carolina. Duke, in turn, hired a company Malcolm ran for $20,000 a month to try to make similar deals happen elsewhere. In essence, Malcolm began working for a major Port tenant.
Malcolm stayed on the Port, which was negotiating tax breaks for businesses, like Duke, operating on Port lands in the South Bay...
Instead, Malcolm was sentenced to 120 days in a county-lockdown facility, probation and almost $300,000 in fines and court fees. His public career was over.
But Malcolm didn't leave the issue alone.
He sued the Port unsuccessfully over its legal advice. Three years after his plea, Malcolm won a fight to get the charge reduced to a misdemeanor and the conviction expunged from his record. The topic remains raw. Malcolm speaks in extended monologues about the case's arcane details...
[Maura Larkins' comment: I have a sense that plenty of public officials betray the public trust even more than Malcolm did, and they never get called to account. For example, Juan Vargas took a lucrative job with an insurance company right when he left his job on the California Assembly insurance committee. And then the voters returned him to office a few years later!
Also, Duncan Hunter is famous for warm relationships with military contractors. I also have sympathy for Malcolm's disgust with public entity lawyers. It seems that they are often chosen because they tell officials they can help them get away with ignoring the law.]
With Malcolm was his cousin Dan Malcolm, an incoming Port commissioner from Imperial Beach. David Malcolm said that he and Dan were "very close," according to a Port memorandum on the conversation. The memo added the environmental director felt uncomfortable discussing the power plant and the conversation ended.
"This information is included only for public disclosure and to avoid any appearance that the District has been cooperating or in any way engaged with David Malcolm on matters related to the South Bay Power Plant," the Port report states.
It's not just future development that's at stake. There's about $60 million set aside to pay for the plant's demolition. The Houston-based company that currently owns the plant, Dynegy, pays the Port rent. Dynegy also is for sale.
The city of Chula Vista wants in, too. Its leaders were the ones who contacted Malcolm, Peace and other South Bay leaders over the summer to get the plant down. Malcolm and Peace helped arrange a meeting with state regulators this fall to push for the plant's closure.
"I had a choice of saying, 'Oooh, I'm not going to call David Malcolm,'" said Chula Vista Mayor Cheryl Cox. "Why wouldn't you call someone who knows as much about it as he does?"...
Last week, that ask came. A Chula Vista councilwoman emailed Malcolm, Peace and others requesting advice for responding to the Port's latest demands...
[Maura Larkins comment: Was that councilwoman Patricia Aguilar?]
Friday, December 12, 2008
Cheryl Cox should resign or be recalled; she has brought corruption, not character, to the Chula Vista mayor's office
District Attorney Bonnie Dumanis' office investigated and prosecuted a young man for taking two hours off when he worked for mayor Steve Padilla. Why? Because Cheryl Cox supporters were outraged that the young man used the time to try to get a photo of Cheryl Cox with disgraced politico David Malcolm. Dumanis topped off her gift to Cox cronies (including San Diego County Supervisor Greg Cox, Cheryl's husband) by prosecuting another Cox opponent, Steve Castaneda. That political prosecution ended with the vindication of the victim.
Cheryl Cox told the voters that she was the candidate with more "character." That gambit was a hoax.
Cheryl Cox's character has been revealed to be cynical and corrupt. Not only is Cheryl dishonest and secretive, but she abuses her power. And worst of all, she happily watches as the District Attorney's office abuses its power on her behalf.
Chief of staff Dan Forster should go, and he should go now.
And Cheryl Cox should go with him.
Mayor's top aide got pay for other job on city time
By Tanya Sierra
SAN DIEGO UNION-TRIBUNE STAFF WRITER
December 12, 2008
Mayor Cheryl Cox's chief of staff was paid at least $25,000 as a consultant for his previous employer, with some of that work done on city time, according to documents released this week.
Dan Forster, who has worked for Cox since December 2006, said last month that he made $10,000 plus expenses for his consulting work for the North Slope Borough, a government agency he once worked for in Alaska...
North Slope Borough records show that officials agreed to pay Forster up to $27,030 between September 2007 and August 2008...Forster said Wednesday that he might have underestimated how much he was paid when asked about the work last month.
Invoices show that Forster has so far been paid $24,957, about $2,000 shy of his $27,030 contract maximum...
It is unclear how much of the work was done on city of Chula Vista time, but numerous e-mails – many with lengthy attachments – were sent to and from Forster's city e-mail account during his regular work hours at City Hall.
Last month, Forster said he did very little consultant work on city time. Cox said she gave Forster permission to consult during work hours because he was a good employee with an excellent record of being available when needed.
[This attitude is a complete contradiction of Cox's attitude toward city manager David Garcia. Being available when needed was not an acceptable defense in Cheryl's opinion just one month ago.]
The city's Internet and e-mail policy, however, prohibits employees from operating a business through the city's Internet link.
[Cheryl made it clear when she was a Chula Vista Elementary School board member that she didn't think policies applied to her.]
...This week, Cox proposed eliminating Forster's position because the city is struggling with a projected $20 million budget deficit next year...
Forster, who makes $124,000 a year at the city, said the idea was his and that Cox initially objected...
[I believe Mr. Forster's comment regarding Cox's objection to a clever idea. Cox is not a gifted problem solver, nor does she believe in doing the right thing.]
If his position is eliminated, Forster would stay through the end of June, when this fiscal year ends.
[Very clever idea, Mr. Forster, but not quite good enough. You should leave now, and take Cheryl Cox with you. And you should both be grateful that San Diego has a District Attorney who protects corrupt public officials.]
Cheryl Cox told the voters that she was the candidate with more "character." That gambit was a hoax.
Cheryl Cox's character has been revealed to be cynical and corrupt. Not only is Cheryl dishonest and secretive, but she abuses her power. And worst of all, she happily watches as the District Attorney's office abuses its power on her behalf.
Chief of staff Dan Forster should go, and he should go now.
And Cheryl Cox should go with him.
Mayor's top aide got pay for other job on city time
By Tanya Sierra
SAN DIEGO UNION-TRIBUNE STAFF WRITER
December 12, 2008
Mayor Cheryl Cox's chief of staff was paid at least $25,000 as a consultant for his previous employer, with some of that work done on city time, according to documents released this week.
Dan Forster, who has worked for Cox since December 2006, said last month that he made $10,000 plus expenses for his consulting work for the North Slope Borough, a government agency he once worked for in Alaska...
North Slope Borough records show that officials agreed to pay Forster up to $27,030 between September 2007 and August 2008...Forster said Wednesday that he might have underestimated how much he was paid when asked about the work last month.
Invoices show that Forster has so far been paid $24,957, about $2,000 shy of his $27,030 contract maximum...
It is unclear how much of the work was done on city of Chula Vista time, but numerous e-mails – many with lengthy attachments – were sent to and from Forster's city e-mail account during his regular work hours at City Hall.
Last month, Forster said he did very little consultant work on city time. Cox said she gave Forster permission to consult during work hours because he was a good employee with an excellent record of being available when needed.
[This attitude is a complete contradiction of Cox's attitude toward city manager David Garcia. Being available when needed was not an acceptable defense in Cheryl's opinion just one month ago.]
The city's Internet and e-mail policy, however, prohibits employees from operating a business through the city's Internet link.
[Cheryl made it clear when she was a Chula Vista Elementary School board member that she didn't think policies applied to her.]
...This week, Cox proposed eliminating Forster's position because the city is struggling with a projected $20 million budget deficit next year...
Forster, who makes $124,000 a year at the city, said the idea was his and that Cox initially objected...
[I believe Mr. Forster's comment regarding Cox's objection to a clever idea. Cox is not a gifted problem solver, nor does she believe in doing the right thing.]
If his position is eliminated, Forster would stay through the end of June, when this fiscal year ends.
[Very clever idea, Mr. Forster, but not quite good enough. You should leave now, and take Cheryl Cox with you. And you should both be grateful that San Diego has a District Attorney who protects corrupt public officials.]
Thursday, October 09, 2008
Many Chula Vistans--including some Republicans--aren't happy with Cheryl Cox
Voice of San Diego
A Disillusioned Former Cox Supporter
by SCOTT LEWIS
October 7, 2008
Yes, there is a political war in Chula Vista. Steve Castaneda may be running for re-election to the City Council this November, but his broader sights are set on the Mayor's Office. Mayor Cheryl Cox is on the other side, summoning as much charisma as she can muster to fight this thing out. She doesn't seem to be winning.
One reader, Susan Watry, has already responded to my requests for perspective on it.
"When we supported Cheryl Cox in 2006 we hoped that adults were finally going to be in charge at city hall. Unfortunately we got a rigid authoritarian who has to be in control of everything, who has no ability to compromise and who considers anyone who disagrees with her the e-n-e-m-y. She swooped in expecting to run the city like she ran the Chula Vista Elementary School District -- with a heavy hand and little public input.
"She immediately chose Councilman Jerry Rindone to form her legislative committee. She has even surprised her own council with things these two hatched up behind closed doors.
"She has been out to get Councilman Castaneda for two years. She has strong ties to the Lincoln Club who spent heavily in the June primary in an effort to defeat Castaneda. Just this week I was given a letter she and Greg Cox are sending out asking people to help elect Scott Vinson who is trying to unseat Castaneda. Don't look for harmony anytime soon."
...Comments on Voice of San Diego regarding above article:
Editor´s Choice
During her campaign, Cheryl Cox repeated over and over that she was the candidate that would restore trust between the citizens of Chula Vista and their mayor. I heard her over and over saying this. I agreed. I voted for her. Since her election, I have seen little of what I consider attempts to restore trust. On the contrary, the mayor has worked behind closed doors, corresponded by emails with devlopers out of sight of the public, and proposed new (phone) taxes, calling them tax reductions. None of these were presented in a manner that would make a citizen of Chula Vista feel they were included and wanted them to "trust" their city officials. I am disappointed. My trust has not been restored.
Posted by Sam Longanecker
October 7, 2008 10:44 pm
I agree with the other three completely. This is the Mission Statement of the Chula Vista City Council and Mayor Cox totally disregards it on every point. City Council Mission Statement The City of Chula Vista is committed to build and nurture a progressive and cohesive community which values our diversity, respects our citizens, honors our legacy, and embraces the opportunities of the future. It is horrible how big corporations with money to throw around are the only ones considered worthy of doing business in the city and get whatever they want. We need an elected City Attorney who will make sure the laws and policies of the city are interpreted equally and fairly to protect the existing residents and businesses from atrocities such as the MMC Energy proposed large heavy industrial peaker plant a mere 350 feet from homes and 1300 feet from a Headstart and school!
Posted by Theresa Acerro
October 8, 2008 8:34 am
Poor Cheryl. She won the mayors job just as the bottom fell out of real estate development and the city's tax base, which is founded on unlimited sprawl development, is going to hell. And all she does is play dirty George Bush type republican politics, instead of rethinking the city's revenue sources and coming up with a more balanced approach to maintaining a sustainable city. Chula Vista deserves better leadership than she can provide.
Posted by Watcher
October 8, 2008 11:09 am
Cheryl Cox has spent too much time trying to appease her friends and not enough time trying to understand the city she lives in. She laments that she can't get a 8 dollar beer in CV. She will show you all the postcards of the Gaylord facilities in other cities, yet she probably couldn't tell you she stepped foot outside the facilities, which is excactly the problem for the businesses on Third Avenue. If this council election is a referendum is on Cox, then we can expect to see Steve and Pamela. I bet the Supervisor is disappointed that the Cox name he helped build in the South Bay has been sullied by such a divisive and ineffective leader like Cheryl.
Posted by Third Avenue Al
October 8, 2008 11:35 pm
I’m a life-long Republican and I must say that I’m embarrassed to be in the same Party as Cox. While I did vote for her, I will never do so again. She bungled the Gaylord mess, the City Manager, and bungles almost everything that she touches. We would be much better off if she just stayed home and let the city mail her salary.
Posted by Dean
October 9, 2008 6:58 am
This Blogger's comment:
My guess is that Greg Cox taught his wife everything she knows about politics, and also introduced her to David Malcolm, Bonnie Dumanis, Patrick O'Toole and others whose efforts on her behalf ended up exposing the ethics-free environment in which Coxes operate. Greg has simply been luckier than Cheryl, not better.
A Disillusioned Former Cox Supporter
by SCOTT LEWIS
October 7, 2008
Yes, there is a political war in Chula Vista. Steve Castaneda may be running for re-election to the City Council this November, but his broader sights are set on the Mayor's Office. Mayor Cheryl Cox is on the other side, summoning as much charisma as she can muster to fight this thing out. She doesn't seem to be winning.
One reader, Susan Watry, has already responded to my requests for perspective on it.
"When we supported Cheryl Cox in 2006 we hoped that adults were finally going to be in charge at city hall. Unfortunately we got a rigid authoritarian who has to be in control of everything, who has no ability to compromise and who considers anyone who disagrees with her the e-n-e-m-y. She swooped in expecting to run the city like she ran the Chula Vista Elementary School District -- with a heavy hand and little public input.
"She immediately chose Councilman Jerry Rindone to form her legislative committee. She has even surprised her own council with things these two hatched up behind closed doors.
"She has been out to get Councilman Castaneda for two years. She has strong ties to the Lincoln Club who spent heavily in the June primary in an effort to defeat Castaneda. Just this week I was given a letter she and Greg Cox are sending out asking people to help elect Scott Vinson who is trying to unseat Castaneda. Don't look for harmony anytime soon."
...Comments on Voice of San Diego regarding above article:
Editor´s Choice
During her campaign, Cheryl Cox repeated over and over that she was the candidate that would restore trust between the citizens of Chula Vista and their mayor. I heard her over and over saying this. I agreed. I voted for her. Since her election, I have seen little of what I consider attempts to restore trust. On the contrary, the mayor has worked behind closed doors, corresponded by emails with devlopers out of sight of the public, and proposed new (phone) taxes, calling them tax reductions. None of these were presented in a manner that would make a citizen of Chula Vista feel they were included and wanted them to "trust" their city officials. I am disappointed. My trust has not been restored.
Posted by Sam Longanecker
October 7, 2008 10:44 pm
I agree with the other three completely. This is the Mission Statement of the Chula Vista City Council and Mayor Cox totally disregards it on every point. City Council Mission Statement The City of Chula Vista is committed to build and nurture a progressive and cohesive community which values our diversity, respects our citizens, honors our legacy, and embraces the opportunities of the future. It is horrible how big corporations with money to throw around are the only ones considered worthy of doing business in the city and get whatever they want. We need an elected City Attorney who will make sure the laws and policies of the city are interpreted equally and fairly to protect the existing residents and businesses from atrocities such as the MMC Energy proposed large heavy industrial peaker plant a mere 350 feet from homes and 1300 feet from a Headstart and school!
Posted by Theresa Acerro
October 8, 2008 8:34 am
Poor Cheryl. She won the mayors job just as the bottom fell out of real estate development and the city's tax base, which is founded on unlimited sprawl development, is going to hell. And all she does is play dirty George Bush type republican politics, instead of rethinking the city's revenue sources and coming up with a more balanced approach to maintaining a sustainable city. Chula Vista deserves better leadership than she can provide.
Posted by Watcher
October 8, 2008 11:09 am
Cheryl Cox has spent too much time trying to appease her friends and not enough time trying to understand the city she lives in. She laments that she can't get a 8 dollar beer in CV. She will show you all the postcards of the Gaylord facilities in other cities, yet she probably couldn't tell you she stepped foot outside the facilities, which is excactly the problem for the businesses on Third Avenue. If this council election is a referendum is on Cox, then we can expect to see Steve and Pamela. I bet the Supervisor is disappointed that the Cox name he helped build in the South Bay has been sullied by such a divisive and ineffective leader like Cheryl.
Posted by Third Avenue Al
October 8, 2008 11:35 pm
I’m a life-long Republican and I must say that I’m embarrassed to be in the same Party as Cox. While I did vote for her, I will never do so again. She bungled the Gaylord mess, the City Manager, and bungles almost everything that she touches. We would be much better off if she just stayed home and let the city mail her salary.
Posted by Dean
October 9, 2008 6:58 am
This Blogger's comment:
My guess is that Greg Cox taught his wife everything she knows about politics, and also introduced her to David Malcolm, Bonnie Dumanis, Patrick O'Toole and others whose efforts on her behalf ended up exposing the ethics-free environment in which Coxes operate. Greg has simply been luckier than Cheryl, not better.
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
Recall Mayor Cheryl Cox press conference
September 30, 2008
Press Conference: Communities Taking Action, a new grassroots organization, takes the first steps to recall Mayor Cox
276 4th Ave Chula Vista, CA 91910 (map)
Joins us for our press conference where we announce that we are recalling Mayor Cheryl Cox. This will take place in front of City Hall at 6:00 PM.
Days earlier, Channel 10 covered another protest against Cheryl Cox.
Press Conference: Communities Taking Action, a new grassroots organization, takes the first steps to recall Mayor Cox
276 4th Ave Chula Vista, CA 91910 (map)
Joins us for our press conference where we announce that we are recalling Mayor Cheryl Cox. This will take place in front of City Hall at 6:00 PM.
Days earlier, Channel 10 covered another protest against Cheryl Cox.
Friday, September 26, 2008
Chula Vista falling apart under leadership of Cheryl Cox and Steve Castaneda
Scott Lewis writes about Dave Garcia, the fired city manager of Chula Vista, and his relationship with mayor Cheryl Cox and Councilman Steve Castaneda. After attacking Cheryl Cox regarding perjury charges that were rejected by a jury, Castaneda seems to be working well with Cox in their joint effort to make questionable and secret charges against the city manager.
Help Wanted: Doctor, City of Chula Vista
By Scott Lewis
Sept. 18, 2008
...The dysfunctional City Council could not even agree to protect taxes and fees the city already charges. There will be more revenue losses.
There are some city managers who see it as their job to placate their nervous bosses on city councils -- giving them what they want (low taxes) and avoiding what they don't want (painful and unpopular cuts). And some of them are clever enough to push off budget obligations even in the toughest of times. David Garcia, whatever you think of him now, was not one of those managers. He spoke with a sense of reality about the situation all local cities are in and he didn't hide the necessary pain.
If the City Council, consumed with short term convictions, chooses someone the politicians can bully, Chula Vista will someday fall off the rails and ground to a halt.
So why do they even need to choose a new manager? Why was Garcia fired without an explanation? I don't know. A month ago, the local newspaper revealed that Chula Vista Mayor Cheryl Cox had officially chided Garcia for viewing what was called "inappropriate" images on his computer. Cox and Garcia agreed that the matter had been settled between the concerned employees who had complained and Garcia. The word "inappropriate" implies quite a spectrum. Managing a fantasy football team, for instance, could be "inappropriate" but so could viewing pornography.
The fact that the matter had been handled to supposedly everyone's satisfaction implied that whatever Garcia was viewing was more on the former side of the spectrum than the latter. Garcia's attorney, Bob Ottilie, said that the images were vacation photos. Again, "vacation photos" can include quite a spectrum of images. And there is no excuse or apologizing for a man who would create a hostile work environment by displaying nude pictures or something.
Unfortunately, the city has, to date, not released the details about what was inappropriate.
So only a few people know what was happening. And the one who seemed most interested in getting rid of Garcia and sharing what was supposedly inappropriate with reporters -- City Councilman Steve Castaneda -- did not return my call for comment.
I asked Mayor Cox in a dozen different ways to share some insight about what had happened. If Garcia had played better with Castaneda and others, would he have kept his job? What changed between when she seemed OK with the issue between Garcia and now when she joined the 4-1 majority that had him fired?
She wouldn't say.
OK. I went at it differently. Had Garcia's tough approach to balancing the budget created enemies?
"Any time you're involved in a situation in which you are in a hiring freeze and the employees are asked to do more and any time you're involved in layoffs or diminished opportunities the employees will tend to compete and there will be people who are concerned," Cox said.
In other words, yes.
So was this partly why Garcia was fired?
Again, she wouldn't say.
"The City Council believed we needed to make a change in order to move forward together. It became clear that this action was in the best interest of the city," Cox said.
"In order to move forward" is an interesting way to put it. This implies that whatever it was that some City Council members were not going to put behind them what had besmirched Garcia. The dysfunctional body would apparently function even worse.
Yes, that's the last thing Chula Vista needs.
The city is sick to the bone...
Help Wanted: Doctor, City of Chula Vista
By Scott Lewis
Sept. 18, 2008
...The dysfunctional City Council could not even agree to protect taxes and fees the city already charges. There will be more revenue losses.
There are some city managers who see it as their job to placate their nervous bosses on city councils -- giving them what they want (low taxes) and avoiding what they don't want (painful and unpopular cuts). And some of them are clever enough to push off budget obligations even in the toughest of times. David Garcia, whatever you think of him now, was not one of those managers. He spoke with a sense of reality about the situation all local cities are in and he didn't hide the necessary pain.
If the City Council, consumed with short term convictions, chooses someone the politicians can bully, Chula Vista will someday fall off the rails and ground to a halt.
So why do they even need to choose a new manager? Why was Garcia fired without an explanation? I don't know. A month ago, the local newspaper revealed that Chula Vista Mayor Cheryl Cox had officially chided Garcia for viewing what was called "inappropriate" images on his computer. Cox and Garcia agreed that the matter had been settled between the concerned employees who had complained and Garcia. The word "inappropriate" implies quite a spectrum. Managing a fantasy football team, for instance, could be "inappropriate" but so could viewing pornography.
The fact that the matter had been handled to supposedly everyone's satisfaction implied that whatever Garcia was viewing was more on the former side of the spectrum than the latter. Garcia's attorney, Bob Ottilie, said that the images were vacation photos. Again, "vacation photos" can include quite a spectrum of images. And there is no excuse or apologizing for a man who would create a hostile work environment by displaying nude pictures or something.
Unfortunately, the city has, to date, not released the details about what was inappropriate.
So only a few people know what was happening. And the one who seemed most interested in getting rid of Garcia and sharing what was supposedly inappropriate with reporters -- City Councilman Steve Castaneda -- did not return my call for comment.
I asked Mayor Cox in a dozen different ways to share some insight about what had happened. If Garcia had played better with Castaneda and others, would he have kept his job? What changed between when she seemed OK with the issue between Garcia and now when she joined the 4-1 majority that had him fired?
She wouldn't say.
OK. I went at it differently. Had Garcia's tough approach to balancing the budget created enemies?
"Any time you're involved in a situation in which you are in a hiring freeze and the employees are asked to do more and any time you're involved in layoffs or diminished opportunities the employees will tend to compete and there will be people who are concerned," Cox said.
In other words, yes.
So was this partly why Garcia was fired?
Again, she wouldn't say.
"The City Council believed we needed to make a change in order to move forward together. It became clear that this action was in the best interest of the city," Cox said.
"In order to move forward" is an interesting way to put it. This implies that whatever it was that some City Council members were not going to put behind them what had besmirched Garcia. The dysfunctional body would apparently function even worse.
Yes, that's the last thing Chula Vista needs.
The city is sick to the bone...
Wednesday, August 20, 2008
Who is Chula Vista's city attorney?
Who exactly is the city attorney that Cheryl Cox wants the City Manager to coordinate with? It's not Ann Y. Moore, even though Moore is still listed on the city's website.
The National Law Journal wrote on June 2, 2008:
"Chula Vista City Attorney Ann Y. Moore is retiring on Thursday and will join San Diego's Norton Moore as a senior partner, the San Diego Union-Tribune reported. Moore began as an assistant city attorney in 1995 and was appointed city attorney in 2003. The move comes before a ballot initiative that would make the city attorney elected, rather than appointed, if passed. The city council hasn't named a replacement for Moore, the Union-Tribune reported."
What's going on, Mayor Cox? Who prepared that letter for Mr. Garcia? Why the secrecy?
The National Law Journal wrote on June 2, 2008:
"Chula Vista City Attorney Ann Y. Moore is retiring on Thursday and will join San Diego's Norton Moore as a senior partner, the San Diego Union-Tribune reported. Moore began as an assistant city attorney in 1995 and was appointed city attorney in 2003. The move comes before a ballot initiative that would make the city attorney elected, rather than appointed, if passed. The city council hasn't named a replacement for Moore, the Union-Tribune reported."
What's going on, Mayor Cox? Who prepared that letter for Mr. Garcia? Why the secrecy?
Chula Vista Mayor Cheryl Cox had problems in her earlier job
Recently two employees reported that Chula Vista City Manager David Garcia was looking at inappropriate images on his laptop, and Mayor Cheryl Cox hired an investigator to look into the report. On May 28 she wrote a memo saying the City Council disapproved of Garcia's Internet conduct.
This is a far cry from Cox's behavior as a board member of Chula Vista Elementary School District.
In 2001, two employees at CVESD reported that they feared that a fellow teacher would kill them. This sounds a little more serious that downloading images on a laptop, doesn't it?
Cheryl Cox and her fellow board members never investigated.
Why not? Partly because she knew the report was false. But more importantly, she knew that the two teachers from Castle Park Elementary made the report to coverup criminal wrongdoing by the teachers.
Cheryl also wanted to coverup that wrongdoing. Castle Park Elementary has been a mess ever since, going through 11 principals in 11 years.
It looks like Cheryl wants to make a mess out of Chula Vista, too. Can we look forward to 11 city managers in 11 years, Cheryl?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)