Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneHugo
PS: Post stuff
|
Well if you insist...
Fun times, County approved a master plan for McClellan-Palomar airport with an 800' runway extension and an upgrade in classification to D-III for commercial service (aka regional jets, up to 737s although other factors make this unlikely). Predictably a group of North County residents sued under CEQA, guided by the ever gratuitous Correy Briggs, esq.
I really wish there was better education on CEQA, then maybe we'd have less of these pointless lawsuits. Just an FYI, the ultimate authority for project approvals lies with the local approving body (city council, board of supervisors, etc). All CEQA says is that you are require to present this body with an accurate statement on any new effects this project will have on the physical environment before approving it, and
if there was anything missing from this statement you can sue to have the statement redone and presented again.
For reference, a list of things that do not represent a valid CEQA case:
-Any existing environmental conditions, or anything that would still occur if the project wasn't built. That's simply outside the scope of what we're discussing.
-Any environmental impact that was disclosed in the EIR, even if it wasn't mitigated. Your duly elected representatives are assumed to have read the document and their approval means the benefits of this proposed project have been judged as worth the cost.
-Any reasoning the approving body's to approve the project, short of bribery or other malfeasance. As duly elected representatives the approving board de-facto represents the will of the community itself, and thus are given broad leeway in their decision making.
-Any reasoning the project sponsor or approving body used to make choice of alternatives, even if this lead to them choosing an alternative that presents greater environmental impacts than the others. Again, approving bodies have broad leeway in their decision making and their approval means the benefits have been judged as worth the cost.
-Any non-physical environmental impacts, including social and economic impacts. The courts have really been cracking down on this one lately, so any arguments about how this project affects your lifestyle or income are going to get short shrift unless you can provide a direct, measurable, and physical link with the project (and
not how it makes you feel sad/unhappy).
-Any minor issues with document formatting or inconsequential omitted environmental impacts that wouldn't have effected the approving body's decision. No EIR can ever be totally complete or perfect, the point is to provide the approving body with enough information to make a yes/no judgement.
A list of things that do represent a valid CEQA case:
-When a project sponsor, intentionally or unintentionally, omits one or more of the ways the proposed project will effect the physical environment around it, and the omission was significant enough to likely effect the approving body's decision. Or in layman's terms, if there was something left out of the EIR that could've changed the approving body's mind. Anything else, and all you're doing is wasting two years of everyone's time and helping pay for Corey Briggs' new yacht.