AgdaPkt 2020-11-09 Joint SA PFA - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Ms. Lindy Chan, Principal Planner City of Redwood City, Planning Services October 27, 2020 Page 4 impacts of the proposed Project could otherwise interfere with the District's ability to accomplish its own performance objectives. In order to analyze these questions, the Draft and Final EIRs would have needed to analyze how the District currently uses its facilities at Sequoia High School and the District Office, how the Project would impact these uses, and what sort of mitigation could alleviate these impacts (see July 13 letter requests for specific information nos. 1-12). Rather than engaging in this analysis, the Final EIR attempts to shift the burden to the District in stating that the District's requests for additional analysis are "outside the purview of the City and CEQA and are not relevant to the instant project's potential impacts on the environment." (Final EIR at 3-20.) This response is improper and inconsistent with the requirements of CEQA, as it constitutes the evasion of the lead agency's duty to investigate potentially significant environmental impacts as required by CEQA. (Pub. Res. Code § 21100(b)(1).) The District is willing to engage with the City and Developer regarding the District's facilities usage and needs, but CEQA places the burden of initiating such engagement upon the lead agency. Finally, the Draft EIR, as modified by the Final EIR, fails to analyze adequately cumulative public services impacts on the District due to extensive new development within District boundaries. The Final EIR attempts to dispense with cumulative public services impacts on the District in the same way that it attempts to dispense with all other public services impacts: by asserting that the District has sufficient facilities capacity to accommodate increased enrollment from projected new development at Sequoia High School. (Final EIR at 3-20-3-21.) For the reasons discussed above and in the July 13 letter, such a short and conclusory analysis fails to analyze all of the potential, cumulative impacts on the District's ability to provide its public service in accordance with established performance objectives. B. "School -Related" Impacts As noted, the Final EIR, like the Draft EIR and Initial Study, attempts to rely on SB 50 and Government Code section 65996 in an effort to limit its analysis of impacts caused by the Project "related to" schools. The District reiterates its objections to the Draft EIR's reliance on SB 50 as both practically and legally improper. SB 50 declares that the payment of the developer fees authorized by Education Code section 17620 constitutes "full and complete mitigation of the impacts of any legislative or adjudicative act on the provision of adequate school facilities." (Gov. Code § 65995(h); see also, Gov. Code § 65996(a).) However, California courts have since acknowledged that developer fees do not constitute full and complete mitigation for school -related impacts other than school overcrowding. (Chawanakee Unified Sch. Dist. v. Cty. of Madera (2011) 196 Cal.AppAth 1016 ("Chawanakee").) In light of the above, the District requested that the Final EIR analyze 27 sub -categories of information that are necessary to determine whether the Project results in significant environmental impacts both to and related to schools. As the Final EIR failed to analyze most, if not all of these categories of information, the District maintains and re -asserts its objections to approval of the Project for its failure adequately to analyze "school -related" impacts.