Comments on: CEQA Exemptions For HSR? http://www.cahsrblog.com/2010/03/ceqa-exemptions-for-hsr/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=ceqa-exemptions-for-hsr California High Speed Rail support blog, spreading news and info about the high speed trains project approved by California voters in November 2008. Thu, 09 Feb 2012 06:17:39 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3 By: Samsonian http://www.cahsrblog.com/2010/03/ceqa-exemptions-for-hsr/comment-page-1/#comment-72214 Samsonian Thu, 18 Mar 2010 06:49:42 +0000 http://www.cahsrblog.com/?p=2954#comment-72214 The point is grade separations are exempt from CEQA as it is. That's a recognition that grade separations brings significant benefits, and that CEQA is broken. The point is grade separations are exempt from CEQA as it is.

That’s a recognition that grade separations brings significant benefits, and that CEQA is broken.

]]> By: YesonHSR http://www.cahsrblog.com/2010/03/ceqa-exemptions-for-hsr/comment-page-1/#comment-72193 YesonHSR Thu, 18 Mar 2010 02:59:34 +0000 http://www.cahsrblog.com/?p=2954#comment-72193 The Section between Fresno and Bakersfield along the BNSF may very well be the one that get started..Its straight forward without lots of complex desgins and looks like BNSF will be working with CHSR (look at the web site it has the partners listed and there on it) a perfect place to test the trains and one of the possible major train base sites. I think all the other sections have alot of issues in planning to make the timeline. Plus the fact that we only got less than half of what we need..counting that 400 million for TBT in SF ..so really one section is about all we can hope for..anyway this is just a small start we REALLY need that transportation bill to come thru with its 6 years of true HSR funding The Section between Fresno and Bakersfield along the BNSF may very well be the one that get started..Its straight forward without lots of complex desgins and looks like BNSF will be working with CHSR (look at the web site it has the partners listed and there on it) a perfect place to test the trains and one of the possible major train base sites. I think all the other sections have alot of issues in planning to make the timeline. Plus the fact that we only got less than half of what we need..counting that 400 million for TBT in SF ..so really one section is about all we can hope for..anyway this is just a small start we REALLY need that transportation bill to come thru with its 6 years of true HSR funding

]]> By: Joey http://www.cahsrblog.com/2010/03/ceqa-exemptions-for-hsr/comment-page-1/#comment-72191 Joey Thu, 18 Mar 2010 02:45:13 +0000 http://www.cahsrblog.com/?p=2954#comment-72191 Interestingly, the Transbay Blog already has <a href="http://transbayblog.com/2010/03/16/court-invalidates-the-pleasanton-housing-cap/" rel="nofollow">a post</a> about this. Interestingly, the Transbay Blog already has a post about this.

]]> By: Peter http://www.cahsrblog.com/2010/03/ceqa-exemptions-for-hsr/comment-page-1/#comment-72184 Peter Wed, 17 Mar 2010 20:42:20 +0000 http://www.cahsrblog.com/?p=2954#comment-72184 I think it just states the exemption in broad terms. I think it just states the exemption in broad terms.

]]> By: john http://www.cahsrblog.com/2010/03/ceqa-exemptions-for-hsr/comment-page-1/#comment-72183 john Wed, 17 Mar 2010 20:05:07 +0000 http://www.cahsrblog.com/?p=2954#comment-72183 The bill doesn't cover exempting projects from CEQA in San Mateo County. Is that an "oversite" ? The bill doesn’t cover exempting projects from CEQA in San Mateo County.
Is that an “oversite” ?

]]> By: Peter http://www.cahsrblog.com/2010/03/ceqa-exemptions-for-hsr/comment-page-1/#comment-72181 Peter Wed, 17 Mar 2010 18:10:39 +0000 http://www.cahsrblog.com/?p=2954#comment-72181 This will please Robert: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/03/17/MNGH1CGQ9H.DTL This will please Robert:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/03/17/MNGH1CGQ9H.DTL

]]> By: Peter http://www.cahsrblog.com/2010/03/ceqa-exemptions-for-hsr/comment-page-1/#comment-72180 Peter Wed, 17 Mar 2010 18:08:44 +0000 http://www.cahsrblog.com/?p=2954#comment-72180 I believe the point was that grade separations are already exempt from CEQA requirements, hence there is no need for the bill, as it only confirms the exemption. I believe the point was that grade separations are already exempt from CEQA requirements, hence there is no need for the bill, as it only confirms the exemption.

]]> By: Peter http://www.cahsrblog.com/2010/03/ceqa-exemptions-for-hsr/comment-page-1/#comment-72179 Peter Wed, 17 Mar 2010 17:46:30 +0000 http://www.cahsrblog.com/?p=2954#comment-72179 Ah, ok, all I had found was the wikipedia article, which referred to an "EIS." It didn't say anything about an EA. Thanks for the link to the ruling. Ah, ok, all I had found was the wikipedia article, which referred to an “EIS.” It didn’t say anything about an EA. Thanks for the link to the ruling.

]]> By: AndyDuncan http://www.cahsrblog.com/2010/03/ceqa-exemptions-for-hsr/comment-page-1/#comment-72178 AndyDuncan Wed, 17 Mar 2010 17:26:56 +0000 http://www.cahsrblog.com/?p=2954#comment-72178 Except it was the state supreme court, not a federal court, that found the exemption was unconstitutional according to the hawaii state constitution, not federal law. In fact, the actual ruling had nothing at all to do with NEPA and was more of a Prop-8 style technicality, where the exemption itself was challenged because it was too specific, exempting a particular project which was deemed unconstitutional. The challenge was not over whether the state could or could not exempt a project from NEPA. More about the ruling <a href="http://nsglc.olemiss.edu/SandBar/SandBar8/8.2superferry.htm" rel="nofollow">here</a>. If you're looking for something more local to California, the proposed NFL stadium in the City of Industry was exempted from CEQA, and that didn't stop the city of Walnut from suing over the environmental impact, a suit that was ultimately <a href="http://cbs2.com/local/Industry.NFL.Stadium.2.1205780.html" rel="nofollow">settled</a>. But again, I'm not trying to say that Hawaii's laws have anything to do with California's, just that the whole idea that we can wish away problems with NIMBY lawsuits by getting a CEQA exemption is naive, at best. Except it was the state supreme court, not a federal court, that found the exemption was unconstitutional according to the hawaii state constitution, not federal law. In fact, the actual ruling had nothing at all to do with NEPA and was more of a Prop-8 style technicality, where the exemption itself was challenged because it was too specific, exempting a particular project which was deemed unconstitutional. The challenge was not over whether the state could or could not exempt a project from NEPA.

More about the ruling here.

If you’re looking for something more local to California, the proposed NFL stadium in the City of Industry was exempted from CEQA, and that didn’t stop the city of Walnut from suing over the environmental impact, a suit that was ultimately settled.

But again, I’m not trying to say that Hawaii’s laws have anything to do with California’s, just that the whole idea that we can wish away problems with NIMBY lawsuits by getting a CEQA exemption is naive, at best.

]]> By: Arthur Dent http://www.cahsrblog.com/2010/03/ceqa-exemptions-for-hsr/comment-page-1/#comment-72177 Arthur Dent Wed, 17 Mar 2010 17:18:21 +0000 http://www.cahsrblog.com/?p=2954#comment-72177 Which point, exactly? A grade separation project is one which separates the rail from the road. Period. It can be elevated, split, trenched, aerialed, bermed, stacked, you name it. None of these options should be exempt from CEQA. How it affects traffic, egress, cross streets, frontage roads, or any other element of the intersection must be studied. As some of you have pointed out, the options are not alike and have consequences. I don't argue that at all. My point is that they should go through the CEQA process. Your arguments support that. As far as extending new CEQA exemptions to the CHSRA, let them prove themselves to be worthy stewards before granting them the exemption. They don’t have a good track record for open, honest communication, and their respect and consideration of the communities they’ll impact has room for improvement, too. At any rate, the grade separation language in that bill is dead. Doesn’t that tell you something? (Samsonian, go back and re-read what I wrote.) Which point, exactly?

A grade separation project is one which separates the rail from the road. Period. It can be elevated, split, trenched, aerialed, bermed, stacked, you name it. None of these options should be exempt from CEQA. How it affects traffic, egress, cross streets, frontage roads, or any other element of the intersection must be studied. As some of you have pointed out, the options are not alike and have consequences. I don’t argue that at all. My point is that they should go through the CEQA process. Your arguments support that.

As far as extending new CEQA exemptions to the CHSRA, let them prove themselves to be worthy stewards before granting them the exemption. They don’t have a good track record for open, honest communication, and their respect and consideration of the communities they’ll impact has room for improvement, too.

At any rate, the grade separation language in that bill is dead. Doesn’t that tell you something?

(Samsonian, go back and re-read what I wrote.)

]]>