LASD continues to delay a decision on relaxing the strictures of the Facilities Use Agreement ( FUA) which BCS signed “under duress” almost a month ago. The LASD Board is busy recalculating *CEQA impacts of the changes in enrollment caps and k-3 participation which Bullis is requesting to run its integrated k-8 program at the split campuses at Egan and Blach. Bullis has already provided two rounds of attendance forecast data to LASD, but was now asked for daily forecasts!? LASD apparently has placed staff and consultants at Bullis campuses to count comings and goings. (ka-ching!)
*CEQA – California Environmental Quality Act
Students are pollution?!
Bullis Charter School says it is willing to try to provide even more detailed data. However, Bullis argues that the CEQA concern is probably not real. If there is a real impact it was caused by LASD making “a unilateral decision about how BCS should use school sites.” Furthermore, Bullis says LASD could adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations (SOC), finding that its need to serve district students outweighs any traffic impacts. “There is no evidence to support LASD’s view that CEQA ‘adverse impacts’ are created because a child chooses to attend a charter school instead of a district-run school.”
Update as of Sept. 12: There is a relevant fresh nugget about CEQA from the 3rd joint BCS & LASD long term planning meeting yesterday evening Sept. 12 in Los Altos Hills. Doug Smith said neighbors doing a CEQA stopped a new pool from going in at Covington/Rosita. Francis LaPoll, BCS trustee, and former Los Altos City Council member explained that was not the case.
LaPoll – BCS: “Actually the City of Los Altos did an *MND. The neighbors took that to court, and the court decided there should have been a full EIR. Then the council changed, and the new council decided not to pursue it [sic the pool]. Had the city gone through that process and made the findings, then the pool would have gone in.”
*MND – Mitigated Negative Declaration
LaPoll – BCS: “My objection isn’t to you taking input on environmental issues, especially from neighbors. My concern is that you sometimes appear to be using that as an excuse that you cannot do something. Neighbors have already sued. They sued the over camp site at Egan as you may remember [sic 2001-2]. They lost. In fact it got thrown out of court the same day. I’m not saying you should treat neighbors that way. [sic changing the topic] I didn’t like it when our kids were sent through an “F” intersection [sic to get to Covington] by the school district when it closed Bullis Purrissima and sent kids to Covington. Right? I understand what you are saying about safety, obviously. But let’s at least be truthful. It’s not that the environmental law is saying you can’t do it. It’s you saying that you don’t want to do it…If you understand that, then you can address the real issues.”
Doug Smith – LASD: ” If the expectation is that the board is going to force something through against the wishes of the community, that’s not realistic. … We’re not going to craft a bond the requires us to do that. The bond won’t pass, if people feel that something is being forced on them. {Lalahpolitico: So if 50 residents across from Egan and Blach say in the short-term, “We hate the traffic,” LASD will say that group represents the “wishes of the community,” and therefore, BCS students should trundle themselves off to boarding school?}
LaPoll – BCS: ” I think that CEQA was not a good thing to talk about now, because it really….It’s involved because of the short terms issues. And [sic at this meeting] we’re not supposed to be talking about the short term. ”
LALAHPOLITICO:
I am very troubled that LASD constantly claims that they represent the wishes of “the community.” Who is this community? The 500-1000 people who have ever show up at a board meeting or emailed? There are 30-40,000 residents of LASD across Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, and parts of Mountain View. This is NOT a homogeneous group! I very much doubt there is even a majority opinion among residents about the various education “policy” edicts emanating from our LASD board. There are probably several different interest groups, some of which could form a coalition.
If there were no public Bullis Charter School, those charter students would be in the public district-run schools.
Total LASD Enrollment without charter = LASD with charter + charter.
I know, I know, yes, 10% to 50% of charter kids might have gone to some private school. But the founding Bullis enrollment was ex-LASD (and ex-PASD). They were kicked out of neighborhood school, Bullis-Purrissima, transferred to the newly opened Covington, and finally chose to go to the parent-created Bullis Charter for the differentiated program there.
Be glad that ten years later, the current crop of Bullis parents are still vested in our public education system and therefore voting for school bonds. Ok, They’ll be voting FOR bonds if the “community” actually treats them like they ARE public school students. The district’s pejorative “semi-private” lingo is just not helpful, and it’s a misrepresentation of the actual charter laws. If the LASD board is serious about passing a school bond, LASD and its puppet organizations need to halt the negative messaging about BCS and the associated character assassination lawsuits they’ve brought. They need to begin two years of positive messaging to reverse all the voter mindshare damage done by two years of assiduous negative messaging.
No Student Lock-out Promise – a Ray of Sunshine
In spite of the CEQA imbroglio, at their Sept. 9 meeting all the LASD trustees did essentially promise they “would never lock-out students” from BCS facilities at Blach and Egan. So that’s a positive note. However, the LASD trustees did not promise that they would never file a lawsuit if they caught BCS in violation of the restrictive FUA.
–The End
Need a deeper dive into Lahlahpolitico’s research on CEQA and SOC? Then read on. If not, you’re done.
Excerpts from BCS Letters to the LASD Board
To the extent you perceive any problem with CEQA, that is entirely a result of your choice to make a unilateral decision about how BCS should use the school sites, without consulting us at any point in the days and months leading up to your CEQA Addendum analysis and the Final Offer on April 1. Further, as you are well aware, your mandate to provide sufficient facilities to public school students is a commonplace basis for a CEQA statement of overriding considerations (“SOC”), in the event there really are unmitigatable adverse impacts and an SOC is necessary.
Source: 090613_BCS_LASDBoard_Letter_SOC
“We are convinced that there are no new or significant CEQA impacts created by our integrated k-8 program operating att Egan and Blach, and we believe your consultantt’s ongoing daily counts of BCS children supports our observation. There is not evidence to support LASD’s view that CEQA “adverse impacts” are created becuse a child chooses to attend a charter school instead of a district-run school. AAnd importantly, the LASD Board’s perceived need to impose grade-level restrictions and cap the presence of charter-enrolled as opposed to district-enrolled students has no basis in CEQA, or even the facts on the ground at the sites.”
“LASD’s view is unheard of among school districts around the state. But assuming solely for the sake of quick and peaceful resolution that there may be some real, new and significant adverse impact to the environment actually created by the LASD Board’s decision to place BCS at Egan and Blach, we suggest that you accurately identiy and quantify those impacts. You now have real data based upon you own consultant’s ongoing head and car counts. In the unlikely even that any new and significant impact actually exits and cannot be mitigated through staggered start times, drop offs, etc., the LASD board can adopt a CEQA Statement of Overriding Considerations (SOC) as part of its consideration. You will thereby eliminate any question concerning real or perceived ‘adverse impacts’ caused by the presence of charter students at either one or both of the sites. SOCs for school projects are neither novel nor unique. As you are aware, an SOC is a factual finding that a school board’s obligation to serve the needs of students can override environmental impacts created by providing public schools, since all public school children – especially those who live within LASD – have a right to access public schools. We do not think there really are any such impacts, but you may adopt an SOC if you make that determination.”
Source: 090913_BCS Letter to DSmith_SOC
BCS Data Provided to LASD
EXTRAS:
Statement of Overriding Considerations – Explanation from from University of California
Where significant effects are unavoidable, a detailed statement of overriding considerations is separately required in addition to the Findings required by CEQA Statutes Section 21081 (a)(3) and the CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 (a)(3) of summarized above.
A “statement of overriding considerations” indicates that even though a project would result in one or more unavoidable adverse impacts, specific economic, social or other stated benefits are sufficient to warrant project approval. The statement explains the justification for proceeding with the project despite the significant adverse environmental impacts.
A statement of overriding considerations provides specific reasons why the benefit of a proposed project outweighs the adverse effect. If the benefits of a project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, those effects may be considered “acceptable” (CEQA Guidelines Section 15093 (a)).
Findings must clearly state whether any significant impacts remain after mitigation measures have been applied. They also provide the basis for making a statement of overriding considerations.
The decision maker must make the Findings, including the statement of overriding consideration, before approving or carrying out a project for which an EIR has been completed.
A Glimpse of the CEQA Red Tape
Want to be terrified by the CEQA red tape? Take a look at a chapter in the University of California handbook on the CEQA process
http://www.ucop.edu/ceqa-handbook/chapter_02/2.3.html
CEQA Harassment Reforms? Not so much.
Excerpt from www.caeconomy.org
“Labor leaders will be pleased by what seems to be a concerted effort to dial back Steinberg’s attempts to reduce CEQA litigation over infill projects. Most of the procedural changes sought by environmentalists remain in the bill, but environmental leaders may remain concerned over how new thresholds will be set–and how the bill’s exemption of aesthetics and parking will be resolved. The new coalition of public works agencies will be disappointed to see language prohibiting “late hits,” in particular, has been removed from the bill.
As for the business leaders who have been pushing for what they call “meaningful” reform: The new amendments to Steinberg’s legislation appear to be another–potentially decisive–step away from the comprehensive, long-lasting changes to CEQA they have been seeking.”
