5 - PUBLIC COMMENT_DAVIS (SAFER)

Home Browse Search

SAFER Comments on Addendum to One Broadway Plaza EIR March 30, 2020 Page 4 of 11 Since the residential element of the Project has never undergone CEQA review, it is a new project, and the City must start from the beginning of the CEQA process under section 21151, conduct an initial study, and determine whether there is substantial evidence of a fair argument that the project will have a significant environmental impact. Friends of College of San Mateo Gardens v. San Mateo, 1 Cal.5th at 951. The City should require CEQA review for the Project, and not approve the Project until CEQA review is completed. 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 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., 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. 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 project 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.App.4th at 931; Stanislaus Audubon Society v. County of Stanislaus (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 144, 150-15; Quail Botanical Gardens Found., Inc. v. City of Encinitas (1994) 29 Cal.App.4th 1597, 1602. The “fair