AgdaPkt 2007-08-13 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

7A Page 26 by the City as an alternative for big-box retail in the certified EIR for the Bayside Gardens project previously proposed for the Century 12 site. It is true that the City has been pursuing the development of an auto sales center for the Century 12 site; however, such a project has not yet materialized, so the site remains available for consideration for other uses. It is appropriate, therefore, under the CEQA statutes and process, for the Century 12 site to be considered as an alternative site for the Costco project. SOCIAL JUSTICE Item #11: The issue of social (environmental) justice was raised on the Draft EIR and responded to in the Final EIR, as referenced in the comment (see page 3-86 of the Final EIR). As stated in the Final EIR, environmental justice evaluations are required under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) for federally developed and/or funded projects. The Costco project does not involve federal funds or federal oversight, so environmental justice review is not required under NEPA. Under CEQA, social effects are not generally considered environmental effects, which is the focus of the statutes. The CEQA Guidelines define the term "significant effect on the environment" as a "substantial, or potentially substantial, adverse change in any of the physical conditions within the area affected by the project including land, air, water, minerals, flora, fauna, ambient noise, and objects of historic and aesthetic significance." With regard to economic and social effects, the Guidelines specifically state that "an economic or social change by itself shall not be considered a significant effect on the environment." This aspect of the Guidelines has been widely interpreted that impacts that are solely economic in nature do not constitute "significant effects on the environment." Nevertheless, CEQA is not exclusively physical in its concern. If an economic impact will cause physical change, as part of a chain of causation, then the physical impact should be considered. The Guidelines state that "economic or social effects of a project may be used to determine the significance of physical changes caused by the project. For example, if the construction of a new freeway or rail line divides an existing community, the construction would be the physical change, but the social effect v'Jould be the basis for determining that the effect vvou!d be significant." As described in the Draft EIR, the proposed Costco project would not result in any significant unavoidable impacts that cannot be mitigated to a less than significant level. Thus, impacts to surrounding neighborhoods, which were evaluated as being the area where the potential for environmental impacts could occur, would not be significant. The comment references the Fiscal and Economic Impact Studies that were prepared for the proposed project on behalf of the City, and a possibility of closure of some individual gas stations if the Costco gas station is built. The Economic Impact Study does indicate this, but it also indicates that, based on information from other cities in which Costco has opened gas stations, closures are not inevitable or even likely. The EIR also considered the possibility of gas station closures and determined that in such an event, blight and associated community impacts would not result. The comment further claims that the affected stations would be those closest to the Costco site. There is no conclusive evidence to support this claim. Finally, the comment states that local residents may be "eliminated" from accessing Costco's gas station because one must be a Costco member to buy Costco fuel and some residents may not be "credit worthy" to become a Costco member. Again, there is no evidence in the record to support this claim. 8