AB 406 Gives Communities More Power
Environmental Review Becomes Objective

by Andrew Garsten

EDITOR'S NOTE: Andrew Garsten, a resident of Echo Park, is an involved community member, and a contributor in both the public safety and the neighborhood council systems. We are grateful for his active, enthusiastic and ongoing participation at LACP.

May 30, 2003

If you or your organizations have not sent in a letter supporting AB 406, the time to do so is NOW.

Please see the article I wrote last March below. It gives my perspective of the impact of this legislation.

For your convenience, I have also attached a Mock-Up of AB 406, along with a list of North East Los Angeles' State Assembly and Senate representatives and their contact information. Please use the sample letters I've included as needed.

The whole process should take about 10 minutes, to move this important piece of legislation one step closer to reality.

If you would like the original documents please e-mail me directly.

Andrew Garsten
andrew.garsten@sbcglobal.net

AB 406 Mock-Up
Government Reps
Sample Letter 1
Sample Letter 2

Here's my original article:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

March 24, 2003

Spread the word and write!

With California Assembly Bill 406 (AB 406), the California Assembly will consider a VERY IMPORTANT piece of legislation, YET NO ONE KNOWS ABOUT IT.

It can place into our hands the ability to fight bad development projects on a more level playing field.

Please forward this information to organizations, individuals, or press contacts you know in the State of California who are concerned with the impact of development, historic preservation, or other environmental issues. We can expect a big $$ push by the "building" lobby, and maybe others, who have a lot vested in the currently absurd system that is in place.

Please WRITE, E-MAIL, or FAX your State Assembly or Senate Representative and ask for them to support this bill. Here's why:

Introduction

Assembly Bill 406, introduced by Assemblywoman Hannah-Beth Jackson (D-Santa Barbara), proposes to make environmental review - Environmental Impact Reports (EIR) or "negative declarations," impartial documents, not the developer skewed instruments that they are today.

Our own Jan Chatten-Brown, a local environmental attorney, helped draft AB 406. Recent notable cases where Jan successfully defended the community, include the battles for state parks at the Corn Fields and Taylor Yards. (See LA Times article March 6, 2003, Bill Addresses Newhall Land Controversy, Richard Fausset and Nicholas Riccardi

Environmental Review: A Great Tool for the Community

One of the public's greatest tools when fighting for historic preservation or against bad development is the Environmental Impact Report (EIR). EIR's give the community a rigorous public process procedure with time to organize, while presenting a costs threshold that scares away developers looking at projects which do not have substantial economic incentives.

Two Types of Environmental Review Documents

There are two kinds of documents that can address environmental concerns; a "mitigated negative declaration," and an EIR. A Mitigated Negative Declaration if approved, serves the purpose of skipping a full environmental review because a project is deemed to not cause any environmental harm, or the harm is compensated for in an obvious way. When a "negative declaration" is accepted by a government agency, the public process of an EIR is essentially over. This is fine, except that many times the "negative declaration" is actually wrong. In that case, the community's only avenue is to take the agency and developer to court. An EIR on the other hand provides for a document that thoroughly explores the impact of a potential project, with a series of document releases, procedural points for public input, and public hearings.

Environmental Review: A Frustratingly Flawed Tool

Unfortunately, there is one critical flaw of the environmental review process that gives developers an unbalanced advantage. Currently, when environmental impact documentation is mandated - negative declaration or EIR, it is the developer that directly hires a firm to put the document together. As a result, these documents are blatantly skewed. Important factual information is inadvertently missing. Every argument contrary to the developer's objectives, whether from the hired environmental consultant or public comment, is simply dismissed without any meaningful substantiation.

Every one of us in the community that has ever had to deal with the EIR process knows these problems all too well. And the forests that have been sacrificed for the often massive and utterly useless EIR documents is itself an environmental shame!

The EIR Game Ends With A Commission Weighing Professional Lies Against Amateur Testimony

If the EIR is deemed required, in the end the process usually comes down to a public hearing. The commissioners (or equivalent) try to weigh the skewed findings of a professionally constructed and defended EIR, against the usually amateur testimony of the community.

Flawed Documents = Court Cases and Wasted Tax Dollars

If a "negative declaration" is issued, or a commission fails to see the truth in a EIR public hearing, the only way for a community to prevail is to bring these cases to our tax dollar supported court system. Developers have the distinct advantage, since the community must find the will and a way to get legal representation. If it goes to court, the public agency - our city, county or state government (again using our tax dollars), defends the decisions made based on these flawed documents.

AB 406 = Impartial Negative Declarations and EIRs

With AB 406 "negative declarations" and EIRs will now be unbiased documents. Data points contributed from any source, will now be weighed appropriately amongst all the information collected in the environmental report. Specifically:

	Government agencies that determine if a proposed development may have significant effect on the environment would now be authorized to hire an independent environmental consultant to prepare a negative declaration or EIR.
	Applicants would be prohibited from submitting a draft environmental review document to the public agency responsible for reviewing the project.
	Applicants would be required to provide full access to sites and information, and would not be able to withhold pertinent information through "confidentiality" clauses.
	No comments would be accepted (to influence the findings of a document), until the comment period begins.
	Agencies would be charged with "independent review before adopting findings and conclusions and must base those findings and conclusions on substantial evidence in the record."
	Departments would be authorized to pass the costs of the independent environmental consultant and any internal review costs through to the applicant.

Contact your State Assemblypersons and State Senators

Community Based Organizations: WRITE!
Individuals: WRITE!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Andrew Garsten

andrew.garsten@sbcglobal.net

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

EDITOR'S NOTE: Other works by Andrew Garsten, a frequent contributor to LA Community Policing who resides in Echo Park, can be found through the following LACP link:

Andrew Garsten
Echoing about community involvement