CORRESPONDENCE - 75C - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

The Bowery Mixed -Use Project CEQA Comment May 11, 2020 Page 3 a 200-bed temporary homeless shelter. The remaining 53,000 square feet of building area is currently vacant. II. LEGAL STANDARDS CEQA requires that an agency analyze the potential environmental impacts of its proposed actions in an EIR (except in certain limited circumstances). (See, e.g., Pub. Resources Code, § 21100.) The EIR is the very heart of CEQA. (Dunn -Edwards v. BAAQAM (1992) 9 Cal.AppAth 644, 652.) "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 Environment v. Cal. Resources Agency (2002) 103 Cal.AppAth 98, 109 ( "CBE v. CRA ").) CEQA has two primary purposes. First, CEQA is designed to inform decision makers and the public about the potential, significant environmental effects of a project. (14 Cal. Code Regs. ("CEQA Guidelines") § 15002(a)(1).) "Its purpose is to inform the public and its responsible officials of the environmental consequences of their decisions before they are made. Thus, the FIR `protects not only the environment but also informed self-government. "' (Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal. 3d 553, 564.) The EIR has been described as "an environmental `alarm bell' whose purpose it is to alert the public and its responsible officials to environmental changes before they have reached ecological points of no return." (Berkeley Keep Jets Over the Bay v. Bd. of Port Commis. (2001) 91 Cal.AppAth 1344, 1354 ("Berkeley Jets"); County oflnyo v. Yorty (1973) 32 Cal.App.3d 795, 810.) Second, CEQA requires public agencies to avoid or reduce environmental damage when "feasible" by requiring "environmentally superior" alternatives and all feasible mitigation measures. (CEQA Guidelines, § 15002(a)(2) and (3); See also Berkeley Jets, 91 Cal.AppAth at 1354; Citizens of Goleta Valley, 52 Cal.3d at 564.) The EIR serves to provide agencies and the public with information about the environmental impacts of a proposed project and to "identify ways that environmental damage can be avoided or significantly reduced." (CEQA Guidelines, § 15002(a)(2).) If the project will have a significant effect on the environment, the agency may approve the project only if it finds that it has "eliminated or substantially lessened all significant effects on the environment where feasible" and that any unavoidable significant effects on the environment are "acceptable due to overriding concerns." (Pub. Resources Code, § 21081; CEQA Guidelines, § 15092(b)(2)(A) & (B).) 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.AppAth at 1355 (emphasis added), quoting, Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of University of California (1988) 47 Cal. 3d 376, 391409, n. 12.) As the court stated in Berkeley Jets, 91 Cal.AppAth at 1355: A prejudicial abuse of discretion occurs "if the failure to include relevant information precludes informed decisionmaking and informed public