You are currently browsing the monthly archive for January 2010.
On Thursday, President Obama announced the states’ shares of the $8 billion in federal stimulus money allotted for high speed rail. California had applied for $4.7 billion but received less than half that amount, with the bulk of the funding going to thirty other states. The California High Speed Rail Authority’s new Business Plan, which was widely criticized both in economic circles and within the Legislature earlier this month, relied on receiving the full amount requested, plus getting another $14 billion in federal aide over the next several years to fully fund the state’s high speed rail project. The President has only committed to $1 billion annually to fund all 31 projects nationwide, dashing the Authority’s hopes for massive federal subsidies and leaving a gapping hole in the funding plan.
This tough news raises three critical questions: First, if the project had a more robust business plan, including realistic cost forecasts and ridership data, would California have faired better? Second, if the Authority had not included the highly-contentious Bay Area route in its federal proposal, would we have received more funding? (That section of the project lacks a certified environmental document, making it unlikely to be completed in time to meet the stimulus deadlines.) Third, since the Authority admits that they weren’t planning for a smaller amount of federal aide, what now?
We hope that this reality check causes the Authority to re-think how it does business, coming up with a realistic plan that addresses a range of funding scenarios. And with less federal money available than hoped for, it’s time to concentrate our investments on one or two segments that can actually be completed by the federal deadlines, instead of spreading the money so thin that we end up with a handful of “tracks to nowhere.” The voters asked for a high speed train in 2008. To deliver, the Authority must do better in 2010.
Despite the recent storms, California can’t rely on record-setting water exports from the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta. That’s the message from the Draft State Water Project Delivery Reliability Report, released by the Department of Water Resources (DWR) on Tuesday. The report shows less water available from the State Water Project on average than what was projected for 2005 and 2007, years that saw a dramatic increase in pumping from the Delta and a devastating decline of the region’s ecological health. DWR cites pumping restrictions required to address ecosystem health and climate change as significant factors in the downward adjustments.
Fortunately, California communities have many cost-effective options to enhance regional self-sufficiency and reduce reliance on Delta pumping, including water use efficiency, water recycling, storm water capture, and groundwater recharge. And to sweeten the deal, these types of regional projects will be prioritized in the next round of Integrated Regional Water Management (IRWM) funding.
John Van de Kamp was the District Attorney for the County of Los Angeles from 1976 until 1982, and the 28th Attorney General of California from 1983 until 1991. He was elected and served as the 80th President of the State Bar of California in 2004-2005. He is currently on the board of directors of the Planning and Conservation League. In this article, he discusses last year’s CEQA exemption for a football stadium in the City of Industry.
I was attending the annual California State Bar Conference in San Diego on September 12, when I received an urgent call from fellow PCL Board member Jan Chatten Brown asking me if I would mediate a CEQA challenge initiated by her client the City of Walnut against the City of Industry and Majestic Realty. The subject: a NFL Stadium complex Majestic’s Ed Roski planned in a corner of the City of Industry between the two bedroom communities of Walnut and Diamond Bar.
The urgency: Senate President Pro Term Daryl Steinberg had held up a bill granting a CEQA exemption to the project, urging the parties to mediate. With the approval of Industry’s and Majestic’s attorneys we dug in on September 14.
The background: Industry had certified or EIR for a development in 2004. Then in 2009 it certified a supplemental EIR for a stadium and a downsized complex. After settling CEQA issues with Diamond Bar, Walnut sued for EIR insufficiency; a Walnut citizen’s group filed a separate but similar challenge.
For some eight days the parties met with me – all the while facing a Senate CEQA exemption vote, the exemption having already passed the Assembly. The lure of an NFL team with a new stadium and the jobs it would bring in the middle of the recession was honey for many legislators.
While confidentiality is the strict rule in mediations it can be said that among the major issues we tried to address were noise, traffic congestions, air pollution, public safety and water usage, most of which were reflected in a post mediation press release issue by the citizens group, Citizens for Community Preservation.
The long and short of it is that the City of Walnut settled its case, gaining traffic mitigation measures, noise limitations, a no-fly zone over the stadium for advertising aircraft, a fire station site, ongoing working and advisory groups to deal with traffic and public safety issues, a community fund for the City of Walnut, and ongoing monitoring of the mitigation measures.
At my urging the City of Industry adopted additional measures aimed at meeting several of the objections of the citizens group, after the group came to an impasse with the developer. They included bars on stripclubs and massage parlors as part of the project, the use of drought tolerant plants and recycled water to irrigate planted areas, and efforts to maximize access to and from the projects from the adjoining 57 and 60 freeway, and to try to restrict traffic north on Grand Ave. through Walnut.
Later representatives of the Citizens group met with Senator Steinberg, but failed to reach a resolution, leading to the passage of ABX3 81 and signature by The Governor granting the CEQA exemption for the project, essentially wiping out the Citizen’s lawsuit. PCL and a number of environmental groups opposed the measure, concerned rightfully that it would stimulate similar end runs. That concern was emphasized when the Assemblyman who sponsored AB 3 81 told me another Assemblyman had asked him to tack on another exemption to his bill – this one for a new San Diego Charger’s stadium. He refused to do so.
Sen. Steinberg has said “If anybody thinks this is a precedent that allows them to ignore California’s environmental laws, it isn’t.”
But the concern remains: when the exemption possibility is alive it tempts developers and would-be beneficiaries to find or fund potential legislative supporters. “Money is the mother milk of politics,” as Jesse Unruh famously said.
CEQA is now nearing its 40th Anniversary. It’s done a lot of good forcing developers and planners to address environmental impacts as a matter of course. It has stopped bad projects, and forced improvements and mitigation where appropriate. The needs for job and a stronger economy should not come at the expense of the environment. As former Speaker Herb Wesson has written “A strong economy is compatible with and complimentary to strong environmental protections.” And as bypasses and changes are sought to alter CEQA that admonition should not be forgotten.
Insofar as the NFL stadium complex is concerned, it will not be constructed until Mr. Roski signs up an NFL team, and he cannot commence negotiations until the day after Super Bowl 2010.
On Tuesday afternoon the State Senate held its own hearing to discuss the High Speed Rail Authority’s new Business Plan for a multi-billion dollar train network stretching from San Diego to San Francisco. Like last week’s Assembly hearing, the Authority’s Plan came under intense scrutiny from the committee members, the Legislative Analyst’s Office, and the public. PCL’s Tina Andolina was there with over a dozen local residents to echo concerns raised by the senators and continue to push for the Authority to be held more accountable for its management of this important project.
The two co-chairs of the hearing, Senators Joe Simitian from Palo Alto and Alan Lowenthal from Long Beach, used the hearing to dig deeper into several areas of the Authority’s Plan that are vague, unclear, or wildly optimistic. In particular, Authority Chairman and Anaheim Mayor Curt Pringle was asked how confident the Authority was that California would received more than half the national pot of money dedicated for high speed rail. He had to admit that the estimate was just a hope. Similarly, Pringle was asked about the Authority’s expectation of receiving new taxpayer dollars to subsidize the project once it’s built, even though this would directly violate the $10 billion bond measure passed by voters in 2008. Pringle could only reply that he had not heard the LAO “say it was a problem,” to which Senator Simitian replied, “I heard (the analyst) say, and I read the language not once but twice that says, there’s no indication that this can be done without violating the law. If he didn’t call that a problem, I will.”
The Business Plan is supposed to outline how the Authority will secure local, private, and federal funding to complete the rail project, since the voter-approved bond covers less than a quarter of the estimated costs. Without a sound strategy for raising money and a solid roadmap for completing the project, voters could be left with a boondoggle instead of an efficient, effective transportation option. The Authority’s performance to date does not inspire confidence that it’s up to the task.
