CORRESPONDENCE - 75D - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MamPlace Transformation Project City Council Agenda Item 75D June 4, 2019 Page 5 II. AN EIR MUST BE PREPARED FOR THE PROPOSED PROJECT BECAUSE THERE IS SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE OF A FAIR ARGUMENT THAT THE PROJECT MAY HAVE ONE OR MORE SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS. As the California Supreme Court held, "[i]f no EIR has been prepared for a nonexempt project, but substantial evidence in the record supports a fair argument that the project may result in significant adverse impacts, the proper remedy is to order preparation of an EIR." Communities for a Better Env't v. South Coast Air Quality Mgmt. Dist. (2010) 48 CalAth 310, 319-320 ["CBE v. SCAQMD"], citing, No Oil, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (1974) 13 Cal.3d 68, 75, 88; Brentwood Assn. for No Drilling, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (1982) 134 Cal.App.3d 491, 504-505. "Significant environmental effect" is defined very broadly as "a substantial or potentially substantial adverse change in the environment." Pub. Res. Code ["PRC"] § 21068; see also 14 CCR § 15382. An effect on the environment need not be "momentous" to meet the CEQA test for significance; it is enough that the impacts are "not trivial. "No Oil, Inc., 13 Cal.3d at 83. "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. Cal. Resources Agency (2002) 103 Cal.AppAth 98, 109 ["CBE v. CRA"]. The EIR is the very heart of CEQA. Bakersfield Citizens for Local Control v. City of Bakersfield (2004) 124 Cal.AppAth 1184, 1214; Pocket Protectors v. City of Sacramento (2004) 124 Cal.AppAth 903, 927. The EIR is an "environmental `alarm bell' whose purpose is to alert the public and its responsible officials to environmental changes before they have reached the ecological points of no return." Bakersfield Citizens, 124 Cal.AppAth at 1220. The EIR also functions as a "document of accountability," intended to "demonstrate to an apprehensive citizenry that the agency has, in fact, analyzed and considered the ecological implications of its action." Laurel Heights Improvements Assn. v. Regents of University of California (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376, 392, The EIR process "protects not only the environment but also informed self- government." Pocket Protectors, 124 Cal.AppAth at 927. Under the "fair argument" standard applicable to environmental review under Pub. Res. Code § 21151, an EIR is required if any substantial evidence in the record indicates that a proj ect may have an adverse environmental effect —even if contrary evidence exists to support the agency's decision. 14 CCR § 15064(f)(1); Pocket Protectors, 124 Cal.AppAth at 931; Stanislaus Audubon Society v. County of Stanislaus (1995) 33 Cal.AppAth 144, 150-15; Quail Botanical Gardens Found., Inc. v. City of Encinitas (1994) 29 Cal.AppAth 1597, 1602. The "fair argument" standard creates a "low threshold" favoring environmental review through an EIR rather than through issuance of negative declarations or notices of exemption from CEQA. Pocket Protectors, 124 Cal.AppAth at 928. An effect on the environment need not be "momentous" to meet the CEQA test for significance; it is enough that the impacts are "not trivial." No Oil, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (1974) 13 Cal.3d 68, 83.