Advertise Here

Deliver your message to thousands of readers every day.

Our readers are influential opinion makers - politicians, journalists and activists.

Learn more about ads.

Our latest headlines

Want more? Dive into the archives.

About Us

David Greenwald, Editor. (Contact David.)
CFC Education Foundation, Publisher. (Contact us.)

Got a news tip? Want to write a guest column?
Contact David here.

About California Progress Report.

Founded by Frank D. Russo (Publisher and Editor, 2006-08).

Books

Democrats on Committee Hold Key to Transparency and Public Participation in California Environmental Quality Act—Vote Set for Monday

By Frank D. Russo

Every year the California Legislature hears new legislation related to the California Environmental Quality Act or CEQA. This law allows public agencies to make informed decisions about the health and environmental impacts of proposed new projects. CEQA requires public agencies to review the environmental impacts of proposed projects, and if there are significant impacts, to prepare an environmental impact report (EIR), which considers feasible alternatives and mitigation measures that would reduce adverse environmental effects. The law also gives local citizens a chance to participate in the process.

Most bills introduced in the legislature seek to streamline the CEQA process or carve out special exemptions for various types of projects. Last year, for example Senate Republicans held the state budget up trying to tie the hands of the Attorney General in enforcing this basic environmental law. This year however, SB 1165 by Senator Sheila Kuehl, seeks to strengthen the statute and actually enhance public participation

But it needs the support of at least two of the following three Democratic members of the Senate Environmental Quality Committee to advance: Joe Simitian, Chair of the Committee, Dean Flores, and soon to be President pro Tem Darrell Steinberg. Since Republican legislators usually vote against any bill to strengthen CEQA, in counting votes, GOP Senators George Runner and Sam Aanestad are almost assured “no votes.” The bill has the support of the author, Kuehl, and Democrat Alan Lowenthal is expected to support it. Five votes are needed.

According to the Planning and Conservation League, the bill’s sponsor, SB 1165 ensures greater transparency in the creation of draft EIRs and requires EIRs older than five years to be reviewed again for new impacts before they can be used to approve a project.

CEQA currently allows project applicants to comment extensively on early drafts and even allows the project applicant to write the entire document. Since the public is not privy to the contents of the draft, it has no way of assessing whether those with financial interests in the project have unduly influenced the contents of the EIR. Current law also allows the use of outdated EIRs and places the burden on the public to demonstrate the need for a new review. By improving public participation, SB 1165 will result in better projects and thus, less litigation—something all reasonable folks should agree on.

During the public testimony taken on the bill in the Senate Environmental Quality Committee this past Monday, supporters of the measure urged the committee members to support SB 1165 and laid out several examples of past abuses which prompted the bills introduction.

Supporters from Los Angeles attended the hearing and discussed a proposed housing development of luxury homes on Elephant Hill in El Sereno, a low-income, Latino community. The original EIR for the project was done in 1992. However, the developer did not seek approval of the project from the City of Los Angeles. Instead, in 2003, after 11 years, the proposed development was sold. In 2004, despite community opposition and the fact that the project was expanded by 50 percent, Los Angeles granted final approval based on the original and inadequate EIR.

After an 18 month campaign waged by local community residents and with the help of City Councilmember Jose Huizar, the Los Angeles City Council voted unanimously to require a supplemental EIR to address the public safety and additional cumulative impacts related to the expanded project. Elva Yañez, Director of the Audubon Center at Debs Park, pointed out to the committee that this victory was the exception, not the rule.

Supporters of the measure also discussed the Newhall Ranch development project as one egregious example of developers unduly influencing EIRs. At the request of the developer, Impact Sciences (the firm hired to do the review) failed to include in the EIR critical San Fernando spine flower habitat (thought to be extinct). After much effort local residents were able to uncover the truth, but not before much of the habitat was plowed under.

Unfortunately, SB 1165 faces significant opposition from development and business interests who have been lobbying to kill the bill. The opposition was out in force last Monday when the bill was first presented.

Since two members of the committee were absent from the committee hearing, a vote on SB 1165 was postponed until Monday, April 14th.

Posted on April 11, 2008

Comments

Sorry, comments are temporarily disabled. We're doing a bit of server maintenance on the commenting area. We'll be back up and running shortly. Thank you for your patience.

Get Email Updates

Want the California Progress Report by email? Once a week, we'll send you the latest and greatest headlines.

Stat tracker