3 - COMBINED PUBLIC COMMENTS- - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Sunflower Legacy Apartments Project May 13, 2019 Page 2 of 6 The Project includes 35 studio apartments, 114 one-bedroom apartments and 77 two- bedroom apartments. The apartment building would be 75 feet in height to the top of roof and the parking structure would be 70 feet in height. The Project proposes 452 parking spaces, including 10 subterranean parking spaces, and handicap spaces. Four bicycle parking spaces are proposed. The Project proposes 57,957 square feet of open space including 22,781 square feet of passive open space, 24,096 square feet of active open space and 11,080 square feet of private open space. A total of 227 storage units are proposed for all five levels in the parking structure, including 20 storage units in the subterranean parking level, for use by the residents. The Project is scheduled to be constructed in two phases. Project construction would start in the first quarter of 2020 and the first phase completed in October 2021. The second phase is scheduled to be completed in December 2021 or early 2022. II. LEGAL STANDARD 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 Management Dist. (2010) 48 Cal.4th 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., supra, 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.App.4th 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.App.4th 1184, 1214; Pocket Protectors v. City of Sacramento (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 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.App.4th 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.App.4th at 927.) An EIR is required if “there is substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before the lead agency, that the project may have a significant effect on the environment.” (PRC § 21080(d); see also Pocket Protectors, 124 Cal.App.4th at 927.) In very limited circumstances, an agency may avoid preparing an EIR by issuing a negative declaration, a written statement