The Associated Press
http://www.bakersfield.com/state_wire/story/5410059p-5420864c.html
Proposals to spur more housing by changing the 1970-era California Environmental Quality Act
--- - AB648, By Assemblyman Dave Jones, D-Sacramento: Makes cities considering development projects subject to CEQA analysis identify the eventual owner or user of the project.
- AB1387, by Assemblyman Dave Jones, D-Sacramento: Allows housing projects proposed in downtown or central city neighborhoods to be approved without analyzing traffic impacts if they comply with traffic and transportation policies in the city's zoning and growth plans.
- SB427, by Sen. Dennis Hollingsworth, R-La Mesa: Exempts new freeway overpasses, on ramps and off ramps proposed on existing Caltrans property from undergoing an environmental analysis.
- SB785, by Sen. Tom McClintock, R-Northridge: Requires groups that use the environmental quality act to sue development projects to list all people, associations, partnerships or corporations involved and their financial interest in the controversy or other interest that could be affected by the outcome.
- SB832, by Sen. Don Perata, D-Oakland: Greatly expands areas of central city development exempt from CEQA requirements. Would include projects under 10 acres with fewer than 300 homes in cities with more than 200,000 residents.
- SB948, by Sen. Kevin Murray, D-Culver City: Allows home builders to prepare a short-form environmental impact report rather than expensive full-blown report for residential projects inside cities or unincorporated areas already planned and zoned for houses. Cites the state's housing shortage and need to remove regulatory barriers.
- Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger: Working on draft legislation that says developers who build homes on land already planned and zoned for housing - and analyzed earlier for environmental effects - would not have to do more analyses for impacts. It would also limit lawsuits to whether the project is consistent with growth plans
---
Supporters of the environmental act point to numerous "success stories:"
- In 2002, the Antioch City Council shelved a 2,700-acre residential-commercial project near Antioch when the environmental impact report showed it would add 14,000 more car trips to Highway 4.
- In 2003, Hercules developers planning a 123-home project on an old industrial site agreed to more extensive soil sampling tests after newly required environmental studies raised concerns about toxic soils.
- In 2003, Lockheed Martin dropped plans for 18,000 homes and two golf courses in Riverside County's Portrero Valley after a Sierra Club lawsuit proved its environmental impact report inadequate. The land eventually became part of the San Jacinto Wildlife Area.
- In 2003, Dow Chemical agreed to 30 measures to reduce emissions from a proposed pesticide manufacturing plant in Pittsburg, and agreed to donate $1 million for environmental projects after a lawsuit challenged the city's approval of the plant without environmental studies.
- In 1996, the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Los Angeles abandoned plans to tear down St. Vibiana's Cathedral after courts forced further environmental studies. The archdiocese eventually sold the property to a developer who began a seismic retrofit of the building.
---
Critics of how the environmental act is used cite examples of abuse:
- In 2003, an environmental lawsuit seeking new traffic impact and air quality studies blocked construction for several months on a 119-unit residential building near a light rail station in downtown Sacramento and within walking distance of thousands of jobs.
- In 2004, environmental lawsuits halted construction on a Bakersfield Wal-Mart Supercenter and blocked the start of construction on a second Supercenter. Developer attorneys, who allege that competitors and labor unions are behind the lawsuits, say delays could range from two to four years.
- In 1994, an environmental lawsuit caused a 1 1/2-year delay for a 40-apartment, low-income housing project approved by the city of West Hollywood for people with AIDS.
- In 1992, an environmental lawsuit produced a 2 1/2-year delay for a low-income housing project in Fairfax.
- In 2000, an environmental lawsuit added six years to the time line to build a 566-lot, equestrian-themed subdivision in rural El Dorado County.
---
Sources: California Building Industry Association; attorneys for Castle and Cooke, Inc.; Planning and Conservation League; California League of Conservation Voters.
They'd better change the environmental restrictions and delays on power plants while they're at it. The last thing they need is more houses and less power.
fyi
"The growing momentum to change the California Environmental Quality Act sets up a clash between business and environmental interests in a state with some of the nation's highest priced homes and lowest rates of homeownership.....
Say, what about the people whose houses are increasing in value by 20% every year? I would say they have a horse in this race, although not a very attractive one.
Reforming the law is against my financial interest. Reform it anyway.
In short, the whole point is to make life more convenient for the rich.
I have always found it amusing that the people who sue to keep others from building homes already own their own homes. It is rather self serving to keep the available number of homes small. That causes the value of the existing homes to rise dramatically, and makes their own homes worth more.
They need to pass some new law to increase the amount of daylight while not letting it get too hot, and rain only in the early morning and not at all on
Saturday.
If the "Environmentalists" are for it, oppose it.
If the "Environmentalsts" are against it, support it.
Never give money (or anything else) to an "Environmentalist Charity".
Just east of San Diego, there is open land up the wazoooo. But .. there also happens to be a teeny-tiny butterfly who lives there.
Guess who gets the property ..?? It's not the humans.
My suggestion was - since we have a world renowed ZOO - why not prepare a habitat for the butterfly there and allow a lot more people to see them - leaving the land for PEOPLE.
What I always find extremely amusing is that the same far-left nuts who try to halt every building project for the sake of "the environment" also complain that the lack of "affordable housing" hurts the poor that they care so much about. Instead of admitting that there is a problem, they blame some big business conspiracy and try to mandate construction of affordable homes. The simple principle of supply and demand is out of their intellectual grasp. I know, I'm related to leftist nuts.
OTOH, I sold my house in California not so long ago. I'm not complaining. :)
Arnold knows on which side his Broad is buttered.