The PressDemocrat has a penchant for publishing editorials that are anti-CEQA. The not well researched penchant delivers to the public not well founded discourse on the of CEQA – purpose, use, beneficiaries and outcomes.
In this case, the author of this op ed has skin in the game. Mr. Elmendorf is a developer as well as an attorney – teaching at UC Davis (and I am sure on the phone with Scott Weiner -frequently). For Mr. Elmendorf’ it probably has occurred in some cases CEQA (project review under CEQA) might have been an irritant in obtaining project approval and financial gain.
Aside from the issue of this op ed being slanted, misleading, and inaccurate, CEQA – in its entirety: intent, use, issues, and benefits need to be presented to the public – in a comprehensive fashion. There is more to CEQA than housing. And…as CEQA goes, so goes the environment. Don’t we have enough problems already?
Ninety Eight percent of all projects (including housing) are approve without a problem (without extended review or court challenges). I have a study on that if you want it.
I am attaching, for your review:
1) My comments on CEQA (CEQA reform considerations before the Little Hoover Commission).
2) Letter/Report to the Board of Forestry and Resources Agency, by Chris Moranto (retired chief mensurationist for Calfire).
This letter/Report indicates that, due to incomplete, inaccurate, and misleading reporting by timberland owners – there there is no way to make growth and yield determinations (forest inventory status). There are huge forestry, fire resilience, water quality, and fish and wildlife implications indicated. Just another area where we need more from CEQA not less.
Finally: The Press Democrat should do more research and use more discretion in the publication of such inaccurate and misleading pieces. The stakes are very, very high.
Alan Levine for Coast Action Group