Index
RSS Feed
Search
Archives
« SACRAMENTO: SB 17, "Why are your prescription drugs so expensive? Californians may find out"; California Water/Fix, "Southern California water agency approves pitching in $4.3 billion for massive delta tunnels project"; SD 29, "California State Senator Newman recall effort uncertain as deadline for rescinding signatures passes" .... | Main | POLITICS (National, State/Alabama): U.S. Senate election, Alabama, Roy Moore, Foundation for Moral Law, compensation?: "Undisclosed deal guaranteed Roy Moore $180,000 a year for part-time work at charity" .... »
Wednesday
Oct112017

POLITICS (State, Local/Los Angeles): Land use/ development, environmental lawsuits?: "A key change to a major state environmental law again misses a deadline" ....

***Land use/development, environmental lawsuits?

* Los Angeles Times (Liam Dillon):  "A key change to a major state environmental law again misses a deadline" - From the LAT:

California lawmakers keep passing bills to ease the burden of environmental lawsuits against big developments. And they keep ignoring the fact that the deadline they set for the end of the litigation is never met.

Starting in 2011, state legislators have allowed projects with a price tag of at least $100 million that meet a host of environmental and labor standards to get speedier trials under the California Environmental Quality Act, or CEQA, the state’s primary law governing development. Under the law, which was renewed for the third time this year, any CEQA litigation against such projects is supposed to be wrapped up within nine months. Lawmakers supporting the measures have argued that these developments are too important to the state’s economy to wait.

But one project is now waiting longer than it should: a Frank Gehry-designed, mixed-use development at 8150 Sunset Blvd. in Los Angeles. Neighborhood activists sued over the project, arguing that its environmental review was insufficient and questioning plans to demolish a midcentury modern bank building on the site. The nine-month deadline expired earlier this month. The case, however, remains in the California 2nd District Court of Appeal. Both sides are asking appellate court judges to overturn parts of the trial court’s ruling.

This isn't the only time a case has taken more than nine months to be resolved. In fact, the deadline never has been met .................