We all like the concept of infill housing, but let's do it right. No caving to profit-hungry developers.
CEQA: Milpitas case shows how the rush to reform is unwise
Posted:
04/08/2013 10:00:00 AM PDT
Updated:
04/08/2013 07:39:36 PM PDT
Business
interests are pushing to make major changes to the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The main complaint is that this
landmark environmental law is abused by those with "not in my backyard"
interests.
Take the lawsuit against the city of Milpitas' Transit Area Specific Plan. A recent column in this paper claimed that NIMBY interests were behind this litigation and that the petitioners did not have legitimate environmental concerns.
The plan fast-tracked approval of several large projects, including a 732-unit residential development close to the planned Milpitas BART station. A group of concerned neighbors and workers came together to challenge this project. The lawsuit was based on serious environmental and public health grounds.
The California Environmental Protection Agency determined that the building site was heavily contaminated with toxic, carcinogenic chemicals. These toxins were found at levels that far exceed residential standards and could have exposed construction workers to unsafe conditions while excavating contaminated soil. Recent tests show toxic chemical vapors in soil that could
expose future residents.
Milpitas
exempted the project from environmental review in order to encourage
transit-friendly development. But this exemption inadvertently put at
risk the health of thousands of workers and future residents. The city
also risked exposing taxpayers to liability should these people fall ill
from toxins when the city could have -- and should have -- known that
proper mitigation was required.
Workers, conservationists and business interests agree that transit-friendly development is a good idea. Business leaders support it because it promotes economic growth. Conservationists support it because it reduces environmental impacts from sprawl. Construction workers are happy to do good work.
But unlike business leaders, conservationists and workers are looking at more than just the bottom line. They are looking at the health of the larger environment and at how every phase of the project affects public health.
CEQA forces these messy issues into the open and requires public agencies to wrestle with them. It does not prevent projects from moving forward. No matter what happens in this lawsuit, there will be residential development near the Milpitas BART station. But shouldn't the project be built in a way that respects the health of the people who build it and the families who will occupy it?
A recent report by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency puts San Jose as the top city in the nation in building residential infill development. Los Angeles and San Francisco are second and fourth on that list. This rapid rate of infill development goes on with CEQA in place. Aggressively streamlining environmental review would fix an imaginary problem while causing a whole host of public health and environmental risks -- all for the benefit of large developers and other business interests.
The public participation and environmental protections CEQA provides make projects better. They may marginally increase the cost, but removing key environmental protections comes at a cost for all Californians, including business interests.
California is golden because it is green. And California is green because of CEQA.
Workers, conservationists and business interests agree that transit-friendly development is a good idea. Business leaders support it because it promotes economic growth. Conservationists support it because it reduces environmental impacts from sprawl. Construction workers are happy to do good work.
But unlike business leaders, conservationists and workers are looking at more than just the bottom line. They are looking at the health of the larger environment and at how every phase of the project affects public health.
CEQA forces these messy issues into the open and requires public agencies to wrestle with them. It does not prevent projects from moving forward. No matter what happens in this lawsuit, there will be residential development near the Milpitas BART station. But shouldn't the project be built in a way that respects the health of the people who build it and the families who will occupy it?
A recent report by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency puts San Jose as the top city in the nation in building residential infill development. Los Angeles and San Francisco are second and fourth on that list. This rapid rate of infill development goes on with CEQA in place. Aggressively streamlining environmental review would fix an imaginary problem while causing a whole host of public health and environmental risks -- all for the benefit of large developers and other business interests.
The public participation and environmental protections CEQA provides make projects better. They may marginally increase the cost, but removing key environmental protections comes at a cost for all Californians, including business interests.
California is golden because it is green. And California is green because of CEQA.
Richard
Drury is a partner in the law firm Lozeau Drury, and is counsel for the
plaintiffs in May v. Milpitas. He was legal director of Communities for
a Better Environment for a decade and has twice been named attorney of
the year by California Lawyer magazine. He wrote this for this
newspaper.
No comments:
Post a Comment