AgdaPkt 2017-04-03 Joint SA PFA - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

March 15, 2017 Page 2 #50014009_v1 CEQA does not “include such psychological, social, or economic impacts on community character.” ((2016) 245 Cal. App. 4th 560, 581.) This principle was established under CEQA case law as early as the 1980s, as evidenced in a case from San Francisco decided in 1989. As background, throughout the seventies and eighties, the City of San Francisco struggled to create new open space for the park-starved Chinatown community, eventually settling on a site that required the condemnation of a traditional Chinese mortuary. Opponents fought the park for years, and sued under CEQA once it was approved, arguing that since the mortuary “has been an integral part of the social fabric of Chinatown, its physical removal to another location would be disruptive to the community.” The Court of Appeal rejected this argument since it was not “related to any environmental issue,” thus enabling the construction of Woh Hei Yuen Park. (Cathay Mortuary, Inc. v. San Francisco Planning Com. (1989) 207 Cal.App.3d 275, 280.) Case law cited by the Appellant is not applicable here. Bakersfield Citizens for Local Control v. City of Bakersfield (“Bakersfield”) addressed the impacts of “big box” retail store and the physical, urban blight (e.g. boarded up, vacant storefronts) that could result from the closure of downtown businesses. ((2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 1184.) The case holding was limited to “urban decay” impacts from commercial development projects and is not applicable to the proposed residential Project (which includes only 2,900 sq.ft. retail space). Further, the Appellant’s argument is that mom and pop shops will be replaced with higher end restaurant and clothing stores. (Appeal, p. 19.) The replacement of one type of shop with another type of establishment is clearly a different type of economic outcome than the issue of vacant storefronts with physical blight addressed in the Bakersfield case. The El Dorado Union High School v. City of Placerville case cited by the Appellant (related to impacts on schools) is no longer considered precedential law as the case was superseded by the adoption of Senate Bill 50, which imposed a school facilities fees on applicants seeking development approvals. ((1983) 144 Cal.App. 3d 131).) The recent Poway case explicitly stated that the El Dorado Union case has been superseded. (See Poway (2016) 245 Cal. App. 4th, footnote 7.) In the remaining case citied by the Appellant, Christward Ministry v. Superior Court, the court found that potential “traffic” and “noise” impacts from a waste management facility could present a fair argument that an Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”) should be prepared where none had been previously prepared. ((1986)184 Cal.App.3d 180, 197.) Those physical impacts cannot be cited to stand for a proposition that CEQA requires analysis of socioeconomic impacts here, especially where an EIR has already been certified for both the General Plan and Downtown Precise Plan (“DTPP”). Members of the State Legislature often introduce bills that would amend CEQA to permit analysis of socioeconomic issues, but none of these bills have been enacted into law. The following list identifies just some of the unsuccessful attempts to amend CEQA to require analysis of socioeconomic impacts: 8.A. - Page 129