Is “parking” really a CEQA impact? Same as it ever was!

By Miller Starr Regalia Arthur F. Coon : lexology.com – excerpt… a projects’ parking deficits themselves are per se “impacts” requiring mitigation under CEQA – would be antithetical to many environmentally-beneficial “smart growth” policies which discourage on-site parking and automobile use and encourage mass transit and alternative forms of transportation….

Would this be real mass transit or imagined mass transit that is “planned” but does not actually exist?
We shall see how real the public transit system is when BART and AC transit strike.
NOTE: In this case, the court seems to be focused on the “lack of proof”, “inaccurate studies”, and concern over “temporary loss of parking in a residential area”.

Bright Lights Not a Significant Impact; Lack of Parking May Be

Article By Claudia Gutierrez : natlawreview.com – excerpt

In Taxpayers for Accountable School Bond Spending v. San Diego Unified School District (2013) __ Cal.App.4th __ (Case No. D060999) the Court of Appeal for the 4th District held that the San Diego Unified School District (the “District”) must prepare an environmental impact report (“EIR”) on installation of new stadium field lighting and other improvements at Hoover High School to permit nighttime events because there was a fair argument that impacts on neighborhood parking could be significant. The court specifically declined to follow earlier case law to the contrary. The court also held that the District was prohibited from using proceeds of a school bond other than for the purposes specifically listed…
The court found that the District’s traffic and parking analysis on which the Mitigated Negative Declaration was based was flawed… Because the District failed to provide a reasonable estimate of expected attendance at future events, the parking and traffic analysis was speculative…
The court reasoned that the same principles that govern the construction of a statute applies when interpreting a voter initiative… (more)