See this link for the full text of NVLSA's concerns regarding the CEQA Guideline proposed changes.
CEQA UPDATE - report to NVLSA members of the October 21, 2004 meeting
On October 21 Mike Rodrigues, Michael Haley, Ken Manfree, and I reviewed our latest round of concerns with Steve Lederer, who responded as follows:
Section 100. Intent (using Planning Department maps to define resources that need protection). He insisted that resources are only added to those maps as new resources are identified in reports prepared by biologists, archeologists, geologists, or other professionals. We remain skeptical, and want more assurances that this is the case. We asked for a complete list of the maps and to be allowed to study some of them, and he agreed. He will provide us a complete list in his next response,
Section 104. Use of Consultants. (contracting out Planning Department duties at the expense of applicants). He insisted that tasks are contracted out only when staff lacks time or talent to perform them, that applicants pay staff by the hour to do in-house plan reviews anyway, so it shouldn’t cost any more to have outside consultants do them, and that projects are usually contracted out to save the applicant time when staff has a large backlog.
Objectionable definitions . He will:
Delete the definitions of “Biologically critical area” and “Critical Wildlife Movement Corridor”, and delete “Habitat of Limited Distribution” at least until the March release of the Baseline Data Report now being prepared by Jones and Stokes.
Change the definition of “Environmental Resources of Critical Value or Hazardous Concern” to “those resources required to be evaluated by CEQA”.
Change the definition of “Special Status Species” to “those species requiring protection under State CEQA guidelines”.
Regarding “Heritage Tree”, he proposes to let the BOS decide how to word the tree protection clause, although he might delete the size criteria for now. We interpret this to mean that he is going to continue proposing protection of trees, so we told him that we cannot allow him to enact a tree ordinance under the guise of a resolution to update CEQA guidelines, and that if he does, we will attack it.
We also expressed frustration at the complexity of the update and the difficulty of identifying the changes, because it is formatted so differently from the old Guidelines, and we requested a detailed analysis of the changes being made. He balked at that, saying the old guidelines are so out of date and inconsistent with CEQA and State Guidelines that listing all the changes would be a meaningless exercise. But he agreed to list all the points on which his proposed new County Guidelines differ from current State Guidelines. We agreed that this would be very helpful. He will include that analysis in his next response.
We asked him very specific questions about the genesis of this update, and he gave the following history: Former Planning Director Jeff Redding did not revise the 1986 guidelines to keep up with changes as CEQA and local procedures evolved away from those guidelines. About two years ago a staff member was assigned to write an update and prepared a draft, but nothing more was done until about six months ago when Steve Lederer and Will Selleck edited and revised that draft to produce the document that was offered to the BOS on September 14.
We asked him whose idea it was to update the guidelines, and he said it was staff’s idea.
We asked him if any County Supervisor was involved in the update, and he said no.
We asked him if any law firm was involved, and he said no. We asked if Richard Mendelson was involved, and he said no.
We asked him if any outside groups offered input during the writing, and he said no. He also said that of all the groups he eventually sent it to, including Farm Bureau, Wine Growers, Sierra Club, and DP&F, none responded.
We asked why he sent it to DP&F, and he said because they are involved in so many land use cases.
We asked him if he had forwarded our comments to Debra Blodgett, and he said no.
We asked him, if no outside groups had offered any input, then how could he explain Debra Blodgett’s eagerness to have our concerns resolved quickly so this update could be adopted promptly without a big public debate while it is still under the radar of the environmental community? He said he could not explain that.
The bottom line is that Steve Lederer appears to take our comments seriously, he appears to want to resolve our concerns, and he has plausible answers that tend to negate our suspicions. A lot of circumstantial evidence seems to suggest a different story, but my personal judgment of his character tells me that he is being truthful. Am I being fooled?
George Bachich