3 ms·
No, the law clearly states that enrollment increases are not, on their own, subject to CEQA: From TTOTFL itself: "This bill would delete the provision requiri
by gamblor956 5y ago
No, the law clearly states that enrollment increases are not, on their own, subject to CEQA:
From TTOTFL itself:
"This bill would delete the provision requiring the environmental effects relating to changes in enrollment levels be considered in the EIR prepared for the long-range development plan. The bill would provide that enrollment or changes in enrollment, by themselves, do not constitute a project for purposes of CEQA."
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202120220SB118 https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml...
- thaumasiotes 5y agoIt doesn't look like the relevant law is actually changing. There is a provision being deleted: > Environmental effects relating to changes in enrollment levels shall be considered for each campus or medical center of public higher education in the environmental impact report prepared for the long range development plan for the campus or medical center. This already doesn't say that enrollment levels require their own reviews; it says they have to be considered in the university's long-range development plan, which it must file for other reasons. (The bill also amends all instances of "long range development plan" to "long-range development plan". Not sure why.) There are also two provisions being added. The one that looks good is: > Enrollment or changes in enrollment, by themselves, do not constitute a project as defined in Section 21065. Here's the other one: > If a court determines that increases in campus population exceed the projections adopted in the most recent long-range development plan and analyzed in the supporting environmental impact report, and those increases result in significant environmental impacts, the court may order the campus or medical center to prepare a new, supplemental, or subsequent environmental impact report. Only if a new, supplemental, or subsequent environmental impact report has not been certified within 18 months of that order, the court may, pursuant to Sections 525 and 526 of the Code of Civil Procedure, enjoin increases in campus population that exceed the projections adopted in the most recent long-range development plan and analyzed in the supporting environmental impact report. This pretty clearly requires the university's long-range development plan to consider the environmental impact of projected enrollment levels. What did we gain by moving that requirement from subsection (b) to subsection (e)?
- gamblor956 5y agoYou literally stated that the relevant law isn't changing...right before bringing up how the relevant law is changing, so I'm not really sure there's much point in continuing this discussion if you're just going to ignore countervailing facts to maintain your contrarian position.
- thaumasiotes 5y agoI stated that the text of the law was changing in a way that made no change to the requirements imposed by the law. You can't see the difference?