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

Browse Search

March 15, 2017 Page 4 #50014009_v1 consistent with the General Plan and DTPP, and none of the standards for a subsequent CEQA analysis have been met. Specifically, Section 21166 of CEQA forbids a lead agency from requiring more CEQA analysis absent evidence of a significantly new or significantly worse impact that was not and could not have been known when the first EIR - in this case for the General Plan EIR or DTPP EIR - was prepared. (Concerned Dublin Citizens v City of Dublin (2013) 214 Cal.App.4th 1301, 1320 (adoption of new GHG guidelines was not new information because information about the potential effects of GHG emissions was known and could have been addressed in original EIR); A Local & Reg'l Monitor v City of Los Angeles (1993) 12 Cal.App.4th 1773, 1802 (a letter containing reformulated quantifications of traffic study information that was already included in the EIR did not permit subsequent CEQA review.) Here, concerns about displacement were known at the time the EIRs were certified.1 Appellants are merely requesting a "reformulated" analysis of impact areas that were already known, but also not subject to CEQA as socioeconomic impacts, as discussed above. Additionally, the Project also qualifies for a separate exemption as a project that is consistent with a general plan, community plan or zoning. This exemption only permits further CEQA analysis of issues that are "peculiar to the project or its site." Specifically, CEQA Section 21083.3 and CEQA Guideline Section 15183 mandate that projects that are consistent with the development density established by existing zoning, community plan or general plan policies for which an EIR was certified, “shall not require additional environmental review except as might be necessary to examine whether there are project specific effects which are peculiar to the project or its site and that were not disclosed as significant effects in the prior EIR." Here, Appellant does not describe any environmental concerns that are "peculiar" to the 1409 El Camino Real project or location. The Appellants' concern about displacement and gentrification is a general concern about all market-rate housing, even though the subject property includes significant affordable units. Exactly the same argument could be raised against all of the housing development sites analyzed in the General Plan EIR and DTPP EIR. Finally, we would like to correct the factually inaccurate statement in the Appeal that the Project would only provide three low income units. (Appeal, p. 17.) In fact, as outlined in the Staff Report for the January 17, 2017 Planning Commission hearing, the Project would provide 35 low income units (10% of the total units), and pay a fee of approximately $1.2 million prior to issuance of a building permit. (January 17, 2017 Planning Commission Staff Report, p. 5.) In addition, the Applicant has committed to a $250,000 donation to Habitat for Humanity’s 612 Franklin Street project. (Id.) 1 For example, see Ingrid Gould Ellen, Katherine M. O'Regan, “How Low Income Neighborhoods Change: Entry, Exit, and Enhancement,” Regional Science and Urban Economics, Volume 41, Issue 2 (March 2011); Terra McKinnish, Randall Walsh, Kirk White. “Who Gentrifies Low-Income Neighborhoods?” National Bureau Of Economic Research Working Paper 1403 (May 2008); Edward L. Glaeser, Matthew E. Kahn, Jordan Rappaport, Emily R. Kushto, Joseph L. Schofer, “Travel and Transportation Impacts of Urban Gentrification: Chicago, Illinois Case Study,” Infrastructure Technology Institute, Northwestern University (October 2008).”Why do the poor live in cities? The role of public transportation,” Federal Reserve Bank Of Kansas City (November 2006); 8.A. - Page 131