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

Browse Search

March 15, 2017 Page 3 #50014009_v1  SB 731 of 2013 (would have added to CEQA a requirement to study “economic displacement”; died in the Assembly in 2014);  SB 115 of 1999 (Ch. 690, Stats. 1999) (an earlier version of this bill would have directed the Office of Planning and Research to recommend revisions to CEQA that would require analysis of environmental justice; the bill was specifically amended before passage to eliminate this requirement);  SB 1113 of 1997 (bill to require environmental justice impacts under CEQA vetoed by Governor);  AB 3024 of 1992 (similar bill vetoed);  AB 937 of 1991 (similar bill vetoed). Based on the foregoing legislative history, it is clear that the Legislature has continuously rejected the notion of requiring socioeconomic impact analysis under CEQA. In fact, from a policy perspective, the idea that infill residential development might cause impacts flies directly in face of the State’s, region’s and City’s fundamental climate change and transportation policies, as evidenced by recently adopted legislation. For example, Senate Bill 375, adopted in 2008, seeks to reduce greenhouse gases (“GHGs”) by using existing regional transportation plans to achieve the State’s GHG emission reduction goals by siting houses closes to jobs. (Stats 2008, ch 784.) To further encourage infill development, Senate Bill 375 also established certain incentives, in the form of exemptions and streamlining mechanisms, to encourage residential and mixed-use development and designated transit priority projects in proximity to transit opportunities. (See, e.g. Pub. Res. Code §21159.28.) We note that we have conducted separate analysis determining that the Project qualifies for these exemptions and streamlining mechanisms, demonstrating that the Project is exactly the type of project that the Legislature meant to encourage. In 2013, Senate Bill 743 was enacted in an effort to modify transportation methodology utilized in CEQA analysis and to promote the use of standards that place greater focus on implementing the state's goals of reducing GHG emissions, promoting transit, and increasing infill development. (Stats 2013, ch. 386.) Again, the Project is exactly the type of transit oriented, infill development that the Legislature sought to encourage. With respect to the applicable legal standards, the Appellant’s comments regarding gentrification are not legally relevant or timely. Since the General Plan EIR was certified in 2010 and the DTPP EIR was certified in 2011, and since the Project is consistent with both the General Plan and DTPP, the City’s environmental review of the Project is entitled to great deference. Specifically, CEQA provides that “[a]fter an initial EIR is certified, there is a strong presumption against additional environmental review.” (See Pub. Res. C §21166; Friends of the College of San Mateo Gardens v San Mateo County Community College Dist. (2016) 1 Cal.5th 937; San Diego Navy Broadway Complex Coalition v City of San Diego (2010) 185 Cal.App.4th 924; Moss v County of Humboldt (2008) 162 Cal.App.4th 1041, 1049.) Moreover, the Project is 8.A. - Page 130