Laserfiche WebLink
0 0 <br />Mr. Steve Worrall <br />January 13, 2012 <br />Page 6 <br />portions of the site are unacceptable.' The fact remains, though, that simply moving the <br />structure as little as five feet or putting the exhaust fan on the other side of the structure <br />means there is no impact. <br />B. Parking Capacitv Below Code Standards Is Not An Environmental <br />Impact. <br />In its response to comments on numerous alternative sites, the City continues to <br />assert that reducing parking capacity below code requirements, even by a minor amount, <br />is a significant environmental impact. A claim of inadequate parking in and of itself, <br />however, is not necessarily a significant environmental impact to which CEQA applies. <br />As the Court of Appeal has noted: <br />"[T]here is no statutory or case authority requiring an EIR to <br />identify specific measures to provide additional parking <br />spaces in order to meet an anticipated shortfall in parking <br />availability. The social inconvenience of having to hunt for <br />scarce parking spaces is not an environmental impact; the <br />secondary effect of scarce parking on traffic and air quality is. <br />Under CEQA, a project's social impacts need not be treated <br />as significant impacts on the environment. An EIR need only <br />address the secondary physical impacts that could be <br />triggered by a social impact." San Franciscans Upholding the <br />Downtown Plan v. City and County of San Francisco (2002) <br />102 Cal.App.4th 656, 698 (emphasis in original). <br />Indeed, parking no longer appears in the CEQA Appendix G checklist. The <br />California Resources Agency removed parking from the Appendix G Checklist in part <br />based on San Franciscans Upholding the Downtown Plan. As the Agency explained in <br />its December 2009 Final Statement Of Reasons For Regulatory Action: <br />"The Natural Resources Agency is aware of no authority <br />requiring an analysis of parking adequacy as part of a <br />project's environmental review. Rather, the Agency concurs <br />With respect to a rejection of locating the facility along Segerstrom, there also <br />appears to be use of a different criterion for sensitive receptors, using the property line in <br />measuring distance from the school, but using residential structures as the measurement <br />criteria for the Project. Application of criteria must be consistent. <br />55A -139 <br />