|
<br />THE NF;W YORK TIMES. SUNDA Y. OCTOB/;'R B,1972
<br />
<br />ECOLOGICAL RULINUi'
<br />STUNS CALIFORNIA
<br />
<br />Most Building Permits Stop:
<br />After Action by Court '
<br />
<br />.'~1111l Thl s... Yor1r. TIm'.
<br />SAN FRANCISCO, Oct, 7 -
<br />Most Calirornia communities.
<br />have stopped ~suing major I
<br />building permits because or a:
<br />'State Supreme ~ ~ourt ruling I
<br />-:,lhat the effect or. 'such projects
<br />.nn... the -:nvironment must be in- I
<br />.jvestigated first.":{.' '. I
<br />"# 'Some others.' 'InCludinl Los
<br />. tJ1geles,. are is.!uing permits
<br />:with "envlronniental ,disclaim..
<br />"el'ls." Several ba'nks have .aid
<br />;.~hai: they will not. lend money
<br />"'on',the basis' of su~h penniU.
<br />~~ Before the court.\ acted. on I
<br />:~ept. 2.1j" the" state's'.1970 En-!
<br />~,'ironri1ental Quality',Act had'
<br />~been applied only.', to. public!
<br />,:works' .' projects. ~a.t were 1
<br />'de~med to have a ~'signiricani:
<br />jmpact" on ,the ,environment. ,
<br />~, ,But try~ court, in a' 6-1, de-'
<br />'cision, held that. the law also i
<br />applied 'to private construction I
<br />~,for which a development per-
<br />;init' or any. kind must be ott-: ~
<br />.tained-if the' project's effect I
<br />~on the environment would be j
<br />"'nontriviaL"
<br />~ It is' the m03t' Important rul~'
<br />"lng on the environment in, the'
<br />;'state's history, according to
<br />. spokesmen for development in-.
<br />~tere'sts, "conservationists 'and
<br />:~state and local government.
<br />~~; '. Reappraisal Expected
<br />'fl'. Many.. believe' the deCision
<br />'"..will force 'a major reappraisal
<br />of the growth-oriented economy
<br />that in four decades has trans~
<br />formed California from a
<br />mostly rural f~' area to the
<br />mO!it populo,us state 'in ,the
<br />nation., " ,'-
<br />The court held that the Mono
<br />County Board of SuperviSOrs
<br />erred last April 20 in' issuing a
<br />conditional use permit to Inter-
<br />national Recreation, Ltd., of\
<br />La Jol1a, for a 184-unit second':'l
<br />home development. ' .. ,
<br />The concern planned to build
<br />an' eight-story tower at the I
<br />Mammoth Lake ski resurt area i
<br />on. the eastern slope of ~il~'
<br />southern Sierra Nevada Moun-
<br />tains. Eventually, it hoped to
<br />build five or six toweC.!l con-
<br />taining 350 to 400 condominium
<br />apartments, each selling (or
<br />$35,000 to $70,000.
<br />. ^ suit was brought by
<br />i='riend~ of Mammoth, a grollp
<br />'or residents and homeowner]
<br />in the sparsely populated
<br />r~glon, who contended that the
<br />development would spll;wn
<br />'''problems with water, .~wag~,
<br />" :'Ino,:,", removal and polico pro: I
<br />tecllon.
<br />
<br />Law Require, Report
<br />The court ruling wu based
<br />on a portion ot the Environ-
<br />mental Quality Act requiring
<br />areas that have no adopted
<br />conservation element for their
<br />g~ncral plan "make an en-
<br />vironmental impact report on
<br />any project. they intend. to
<br />carry out. which may have a
<br />significant effect on the en-
<br />vironmental and shall submit
<br />it 'to. the local planQ.int
<br />a.gency , .' /' .'
<br />Mono County, and mOst other
<br />c1tie! and counties in the state,
<br />have not yet adopted a con:
<br />,ervation element. The Environ:
<br />"lental Quality Act states that
<br />those- state! that have such an.
<br />,element : mU!it make certain I
<br />. ~ that environmentally. significa.nt
<br />;projects are, "in accord with:.
<br />~the conservation element.
<br />~ The court ruling left con:
<br />l:-idcrable confusion' over. the
<br />~definition of "significant im-'
<br />:pact," .which' ..the court ex~
<br />plained '!II "nontrivial." There
<br />,was ~Iso uncertainty over wha't
<br />;constltutes a proper environ.
<br />mental impact statement and
<br />,whether the' decision would be
<br />'retroactive to when the En-
<br />~vironmental Quality 'Act. took
<br />,effect... -.,.. '.'
<br />:. The resulting developments
<br />'H1-cluded the following: .
<br />\ tJSan Francisco and San Jose
<br />:the state's third and fourth ~
<br />:largest citie~, . on . Wednesday
<br />.placed a total freeze on . new
<br />,building permits. Two days
<br />.Iater, San Francisco modified
<br />;the freeze to allow permits for
<br />home construction and interior
<br />:remodeling. San Jose one of
<br />t~~ n~tion's fastest' growing
<br />CIties, IS expected to announce
<br />a. similar modification.
<br />. County attorneys met In SIln
<br />'F~"ncisco yesterday with
<br />Nlcholu C. Yos.t.- the deputy
<br />State Attorney General, who
<br />J'p.presented California u. I.
<br />friend' of the court on the side '
<br />.or Friends of" Mammoth, : to '
<br />,make an urgent demand 'for
<br />-clarification of the rulinJl:. .
<br />The California Cham her of:
<br />Commerce ClllJ~ together IS
<br />lawyers from its niemberA: con. ~
<br />c~rns and trade associations to :
<br />dl!CUS~ how. to deal with the
<br />decision.
<br />,Many cities and countie3
<br />w~pe~ from their planning com.
<br />miSSion agenda! al1 item! e~-
<br />cept such nondevelopment i.Oj.
<br />.lues as the renaming of roads:
<br />Many planning director] be.
<br />~an asking for sta ft increa!ies
<br />!o prepare- the environmental
<br />Jmpact statements.
<br />Gov. Ronald Reag"n ha,'\
<br />ftsk,ed the Attorney General's
<br />Office to tlieek a delay in the
<br />r1~cision's implementation, Un.
<br />1F","i~ challen:;:ed, the ruling .will
<br />take effect Oct. 21.
<br />
<br />/-!.:~ ({J.- C~
<br />
<br />( OJ){-l~c..I
<br />
<br />For your in~;{:it
<br />October 25, 1972
<br />
<br />C?.)J
<br />~
<br />~
<br />
|