75C - PH - THE BOWERY - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

The Bowery Mixed -Use Project CEQA Comment May 11, 2020 Page 15 An.. agency's responses to comments must specifically explain the reasons for rejecting suggestions received in comments and for proceeding with a project despite its environmental impacts. Such explanations mustbe supported with specific references to empirical information, scientific authority, and/or explanatory information. (Cleary v. County ofstawslaus (1981) 1 IS Cal. App.3d 348, 35T) The responses, moreover, must manifest a good faith, reasoned analysis; eonclusory statements unsupported by factual information will not suffice. (People v. County of Kern (1974) 39 Cal.App.3d 830, 841.) The responses to comments on a draft EIR must state reasons for rejecting suggestions andobjections concerning significant environmental issues. City ofMaywood vLos Angeles Unffied Sch. Dist. (2012) 208 CA4th 362, 391. Responses to comments must manifest a good faith, reasoned analysis; conclusory statements unsupported by factual information will not suffice. People v. County of Kern (1974) 39 Cal. App.3d 830, 841. The need for a reasoned, factual response is particularly acute when critical comments have been made by other agencies orexperis. Berkeley Keep.Iets Over the Bay Con?_ v_ BoardofPort Cmrs_,(200l)91 Cal. App.4th 1344, 1367, 1371 ("Berkeley Jets") (conclusory responses to comments from experts and other agencies that criticized data aid methodologies wed to assess impacts and that were based on extensive supporting studies rendered EIR legally inadequate). "Where comments from responsible experts or sister agencies disclose new or conflicting data or opinions that cause concern that the agency may not have fully evaluated the project and its alternatives, these comments may not simply be ignored. There must be good faith, reasoned analysis in response_' Id_ at 1367 (F'dR inadequate due to failure to respond to expert evidence on toxic air contaminants). The City's responses to comments made by the Department of Toxic Substances Control ("DTSC") were cursory and inadequate. DTSC noted in its comments that the "EIR states that. this Project is not located on or near by a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5," commonly referred to as the "Cortese List" FEIR, 2-3. DTSC requested that the EIR be revised to state that the Project is in fact listed on Geotracker and is located near several hazardous materials sites. Id. In response to DTSC's comment, the FEIR states: The State Water Resources Control Board GeoTracker site identities that previous contamination on the site occurred from an underground storage tank (UST) occurred onsile and that cleanup acid UST removal activities occurred onsite from 1986 through 2006. The cleanup and remediation activities resulted in a "Completed - Case Closed" status as of August 13, 2010, as shown in the attached GeoTracker Listing forthe project site. The Geofrackerinformation identifies only one other hazardous materials site within t,ODO feet of the project site, which is a military UST site located in the former Tustin Marine Corps Air Station. The GeoTracker information can be accessed at the following link, hnps://geolracker.waterboards.ca.gov/profile report.asp?global_ id-T0605900440 15 75C-31