75E - PH 2525 MAIN ST - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

November 26, 2018 Comment on Environmental Impact Report, 2525 N. Main Street Multi -Family Residential Project (aka Magnolia at the Park) SCH 2018021031, DP No. 2017-34 page 4 21100(b)(1); CEQA Guidelines § 15126(a); Berkeley Jets, 91 Cal.AppAth 1344, 1354. The EIR must not only identify the impacts, but must also provide "information about how adverse the impacts will be." Santiago County Water Dist. v. County of Orange (1981) 118 Cal.App.3d 818, 831. The lead agency may deem a particular impact to be insignificant only if it produces rigorous analysis and concrete substantial evidence justifying the finding. Kings County Farm Bureau v. City of Hanford (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 692. "The 'foremost principle' in interpreting CEQA is that the Legislature intended the act to be read so as to afford the fullest possible protection to the environment within the reasonable scope of the statutory language." Communities for a Better Env't v. Calif. Resources Agency (2002) 103 Cal.AppAth 98, 109. While the courts review an EIR using an "abuse of discretion" standard, "the reviewing court is not to 'uncritically rely on every study or analysis presented by a project proponent in support of its position. A'clearly inadequate or unsupported study is entitled to no judicial deference.'" Berkeley Jets, 91 Cal. App. 4th 1344, 1355 (emphasis added), quoting, Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of Univ. of Cal. (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376, 391409, fn. 12. A prejudicial abuse of discretion occurs "if the failure to include relevant information precludes informed decisionmaking and informed public participation, thereby thwarting the statutory goals of the EIR process." San Joaquin Raptor/Wildlife Rescue Center v. County of Stanislaus (1994) 27 Cal. App. 4th 713, 722]; Galante Vineyards v. Monterey Peninsula Water Management Dist. (1997) 60 Cal. App. 4th 1109, 1117; County of Amador v. El Dorado County Water Agency (1999) 76 Cal. App. 4th 931, 946. The lead agency must evaluate comments on the draft EIR and prepare written responses in the final EIR ("FEIR"). (PRC §21091(d)) The FEIR must include a "detailed" written response to all "significant environmental issues" raised by commenters. As the court stated in City of Long Beach v. LA USD (2009) 176 Cal.AppAth 889, 904: The requirement of a detailed written response to comments helps to ensure that the lead agency will fully consider the environmental consequences of a decision before it is made, that the decision is well informed and open to public scrutiny, and that public participation in the environmental review process is meaningful. The FEIR's responses to comments must be detailed and must provide a reasoned, good faith analysis. (14 CCR §15088(c )) Failure to provide a substantive response to comment render the EIR legally inadequate. (Rural Land Owners Assoc. v. City Council (1983) 143 Cal.App.3d 1013, 1020) 75E-248