CORRESPONDENCE - 75C - 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 must be supported with specific references to empirical information, scientific authority, and/or explanatory information. (Cleary v. County ofStanislaus (1981) 118 Cal.App.3d 348, 357.) The responses, moreover, 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 responses to comments on a draft EIR must state reasons for rejecting suggestions and objections concerning significant environmental issues. City ofMaywood v Los Angeles Unified 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 ofKern (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 or experts. Berkeley Keep Jets Over the Bay Com. v. Board of Port Cmrs., (2001) 91 Cal.AppAth 1344, 1367, 1371 (`Berkeley Jets") (conclusory responses to comments from experts and other agencies that criticized data and methodologies used 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 (EIR 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 identifies that previous contamination on the site occurred from an underground storage tank (UST) occurred onsite and that cleanup and 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 for the project site. The GeoTracker information identifies only one other hazardous materials site within 1,000 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: https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/profile report.asp?global id=T0605900440