Long a thorn in the side of anybody wanting to build anything in this state, CEQA is under attack this year by members of both parties. The ally of every no-growther in the state, CEQA has had a hand in delaying or eliminating numerous projects including much needed road, hospital, water infrastructure and home development. Many viable projects have been derailed simply by having their costs explode due to ongoing and capricious environmental requirements. Often just the threat of CEQA is enough to drive project developers to throw their hands in the air.
Want to build windmills to generate electrical power? CEQA compliance will add 6 years to the timetable. Want to put solar collectors out in the middle of the Mojave Desert? Sorry, CEQA says it might disrupt animal migration patterns. Want to add another lane to the I-215? Sorry, you need to re-do all the CEQA stuff you already complied with once even though nothing has changed. Want to build a hospital in Temecula? CEQA will keep you hopping from makework to paperwork in no time at all.
Finally some in our state capitol are growing cajones and saying ‘enough is enough’. We need infrastructure, we need dams and roads and disaster relief and we need JOBS. You’ll note with no great surprise that the Sierra Club bemoans this ‘attack on CEQA’ and ‘developers using the recession as an excuse for rollbacks.’ When the Sierra Club gets into the business of helping create jobs in the state, let me know and I’ll start caring about what they say.
SRCAR has sent a letter to Senator Dennis Hollingsworth in SUPPORT of his bill SB X8-56, outlined below.
State’s main environmental law targeted on broad front in Capitol
Environmentalists say the proposed end-run around the California Environmental Quality Act constitutes one of the most significant changes to CEQA since the law was written 40 years ago and inspired environmental legislation across the country. CEQA is a frequent target of lawsuits and legislation.
Four bills – two in each house – contain Schwarzenegger’s proposal to exempt 25 projects, selected geographically by county, from court review and CEQA each year through 2014. Two of the bills are regular-session measures, the other two were introduced in the 8th Special Session. All are mirror images of each other. Privately, those familiar with the legislation say there is a scramble among lobbyists to get clients’ projects on the exemption list.
The proposals are supported by manufacturers, builders, engineers, developers, business interests and others. They say the proposals will expedite construction of numerous, still-unknown projects and jumpstart the weak economy. They restrict the power of the courts to review the projects and give final authority over the projects to the administration.
The projects could range from refineries to commercial development, housing tracts, highways and water works, among others.
A fifth bill, which would apply retroactively, would exempt critical infrastructure projects for flood control, highways, port security, disaster preparedness and air quality. The proposal is similar to a plan that was proposed last year and rejected. Funding for the projects was approved by voters in 2006 as Proposition 1B, the $19.9 billion transportation bond, and Proposition 1E, the $4.1 billion flood protection bond. Of the funding that was approved, about $16 billion worth of bond funding remains unissued.
The measures containing the administration’s proposals have Democratic and Republican authors. The fifth bill, the infrastructure plan, is authored by Senate GOP Leader Dennis Hollingsworth.
CEQA has long been a target of developers, builders, manufacturers, timber and mining interests and others, but the latest series of bills seeking changes is unusual for their number and scope, observers say. They cite the Legislature’s earlier approval of exemptions for air-emission credits for the South Coast Air Quality Management District and a proposed NFL stadium in Los Angeles County as the progenitors of the latest legislation. Those two proposals constituted the most significant environment-related legislation of 2009.
“We said at the time that they would encourage more of these proposals, and it’s done exactly that,” said Bill Magavern of Sierra Club California. “We’re seeing a stepped-up attack on CEQA this year, and I think we’re seeing development interests using the recession as an excuse for the CEQA rollbacks that they have been gunning for.”
The administration’s proposal, reported by Capitol Weekly in January, is being carried in the Assembly as AB1805 and AB37 8x by Assemblymen Charles Calderon, D-Montebello, and Brian Nestande, R-Riverside. In the Senate, Sens. Correa and Dave Cogdill, R-Fresno, are authoring virtually identical bills, SB 42 8x and SB 1010.
The infrastructure exemptions are contained in SB 56 by Hollingsworth, R-Murietta.
The administration’s proposal allows exemptions for at least 25 construction projects located across California. Ten would be chosen from Imperial, Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino and San Diego counties; five from Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, Napa, San Francisco, Santa Cruz, Solano and Sonoma counties; five from Fresno, Kern, Kings, Madera, Merced, Sacramento, San Joaquin, Stanislaus and Tulare; and five projects located in the rest of the state.
The proposal, which includes a provision for at least one public hearing and legislative input, gives final authority over the projects to the Business, Transportation and Housing Agency, or BTH, a cabinet-level superagency whose secretary, a gubernatorial appointee, reports directly to the governor.
The goal of the governor’s proposal is to expedite projects that would generate jobs and stimulate the sluggish economy.
The proposal sets up a timetable for projects to be approved, and allows for approval if the entity seeking the project expects the project ultimately to receive environmental approval. If the project fails the environmental certification, the BTH can choose alternates. The plan calls for BTH to give lawmakers and the public a list of the projects that win final approval.
Environmentalists said the governor’s plan would weaken environmental safeguards, and questioned whether the language barring court review would pass constitutional muster.
Last year, the governor signed AB 81 3X by Assemblyman Isadore Hall, D-Compton, that streamlined certain CEQA requirements to construct a new NFL stadium in the City of Industry. The stadium proposal, already exempted, would not be covered by the latest legislation.
The governor also signed SB 827 by Sen. Rod Wright, D-Los Angeles, with an estimated $4 billion economic impact affecting some 65,000 jobs in the L.A. basin. The bill allows air regulators to distribute valuable emissions credits in the way they did before the courts, responding to environmentalists, blocked them.