discussion in the PDX YIMBY group about rich NIMBYs, 31.07.18.
“I wish building next to rich people was like building on sites with wetlands, or steep slopes, or on a sharp curve in a road. You hire a technical consultant to write a report to demonstrate it is feasible and safe, maybe with some mitigation, and then all the decision-makers generally defer to his expertise.” — ben schonberger
“The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) sent a last-minute letter attempting to delay progressive updates to California’s outdated environmental standards.
SCAG wants Measure R highway expansion projects, among others, grandfathered past new CEQA rules.
In the letter [PDF], —the regional transportation planning organization for much of southern California—requested exemptions for highway expansion projects and freight corridors from proposed state rules that could show their true environmental impact in a way that old rules do not...
The deadline for comments (on the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research [OPR] rule change to from Level of Service [LOS] to Vehicle Miles Traveled [VMT]) was February 29, and SCAG’s letter came in just under the wire. In it, SCAG requests that OPR limit the new VMT measure to projects that are close to transit, and also to “grandfather in” highway expansion and freight corridor projects that have already been approved in planning documents.
“In other words,” said Amanda Eakin of the Natural Resources Defense Council, “SCAG is saying not to apply the VMT metric to the projects that are most likely to cause more VMT.”
To the NRDC, SCAG’s request makes no sense. “As a state,” she said, “we’ve acknowledged all the problems with LOS, and have agreed to move to a new measure that can promote greenhouse gas reductions and other environmental goals. It makes no sense to apply the new metric to only certain projects.”
OPR is currently proposing a pretty generous two-year opt-in period, during which cities, counties, and regions can “adjust their internal systems” to meet the new rules... If SCAG and others really need more than two years to adjust, they should be more specific about why, rather than just ask for a blanket dispensation for certain projects.”
The state's push to end car-first street planning could ripple across the country.
the 700+ page EIR for the two-mile long BRT project on Van Ness Avenue in SF. excluding the second volume or the thousands of pages of technical supplements.
rendering of the Van Ness BRT line, scheduled to begin operation by 2018.
The only area where the Van Ness BRT project had an unavoidable negative impact that couldn't be offset under CEQA was traffic. "So this whole document was prepared because of the traffic impact," says Schwartz, nodding at the enormous report. And here's the really sad thing about CEQA traffic impacts: They're determined using a car-friendly metric known as "level of service" that bases a project's transportation performance on driver delay. In other words, Van Ness BRT required all the trouble of preparing this massive report because, in the twisted eyes of California law, public transit is considered a greater enemy to the environment than car travel.
That's the bad news. The encouraging news is that this law is about to change. California will soon reform traffic analysis under CEQA by replacing "level of service" with another metric more in line with its environmental and urban mobility goals. So transit projects and transit-friendly development are about to get much, much easier in California cities—and some think the shift in mindset will spread across the country.
read more: citylab, 08.07.14.
Latham Square, a pilot pedestrian plaza at the foot of Telegraph Avenue, has become a lightning rod for controversy. The planned six-month pilot was truncated in early October with the reopening of the southbound lane of Telegraph to auto traffic, though the wider northbound side remains a pedestrian plaza. The city’s handling of the project was shown in a harsh light when the matter came up for review by the public works committee of the Oakland city council this week. The staff proposal would return two-way traffic to Telegraph with an expanded triangle of sidewalk forming a smaller plaza on the east side between Telegraph and Broadway. No other options were included in the staff report.
Chair Rebecca Kaplan began her remarks with “I just want to say, on a process perspective, I think the City of Oakland owes every stakeholder involved a huge apology.” She added, “The public was told we were going to do a six-month pilot of a full closure, at which point we would have had more data to make a rational decision about what to do after that. That was not done.”
oaklandlocal, 19.12.13.
took today off work. :) at the fave cafe again catching up on the eastbayexpress, but this time I’m finally out on their parklet in their parking lot.
article: CEQA reform bill is too modest.
California's signature environmental law needs to be reformed because NIMBYs are using it to block smart growth.
Parker Place provides a case study in how CEQA could be reformed.
Ali Kashani thought he had a sure thing. In 2008, the longtime Berkeley developer proposed to build one of the greenest housing projects in East Bay history. Kashani has long been an advocate for smart-growth development — dense housing and mixed-use projects built on major transit corridors in urban areas. And the architect that he commissioned for his smart-growth project in Berkeley designed it to meet LEED Platinum standards.
....In other words, the Parker Place project is a liberal environmentalist's dream.
...But nothing's ever a sure thing in Berkeley, a city that is home to some of the most vocal and stubborn anti-growth activists in the state. In November 2010, after the Berkeley City Council approved Parker Place, a small group of these activists sued to block the project, using the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) to do it. And now, more than four years after Kashani unveiled his proposal, it's still tied up in litigation. "They really don't like infill projects," Kashani said, referring to how anti-growth activists view urban development. "And they're holding up good projects that could be on the market."
"The law has become so dysfunctional," said Jennifer Hernandez, an attorney for the Holland & Knight firm and a Berkeley resident who advocates for broad reforms of CEQA. "To call this environmental protection anymore ... it's really about quality-of-life" issues.
The California Legislature has approved minor reforms to CEQA during the past decade in an effort to spur smart growth. But CEQA still allows anti-growth activists to pervert environmental law. For example, the group that sued to block Parker Place contended that the city's environmental study was "inadequate," essentially because the project involves the cleaning up of polluted soil and groundwater.
Yes, you read that right. A project that would not only help fight climate change, but also would clean up contaminated soil and groundwater in downtown Berkeley has been blocked in court thanks to a law that's supposed to protect the environment.
read more: eastbayexpress, 13.03.13.
