3 - The Bowery_PUBLIC COMMENT (SAFER)

Home Browse Search

The Bowery Mixed-Use Project CEQA Comment May 11, 2020 Page 14 contamination may remain at levels that would not be safe for residential development. This is why it is important to keep sites on the Cortese List even if they are closed. But even assuming arguendo the Project site was no longer on the Cortese List because it was a closed site – which is untrue – the EIR still needed to discuss the Cortese List because, according to the Phase I and II reports, the site will need to be reopened for additional remediation, which - under the EIR’s reasoning – would put the site back on the List once again. In addition to not disclosing that the site is on the Cortese List, the EIR also fails to disclose material information about the Project site. Instead, to truly learn about the hazardous materials and contamination at the Project site, the public and decision makers are required to dig through thousands of pages in the appendices in order to find out basic information about the Project. This violates CEQA. For example: • The DEIR does not disclose that the Project site is contaminated with hazardous materials at levels that exceed residential human health screening levels. • The DEIR does not disclose the impact the existing contamination could have on human health of construction workers or future residents of the Property. • The DEIR does not mention or describe previous hazardous materials remediation efforts at the Project site. • The DEIR does not disclose that the Project will need to re-open its formerly closed case in order to further remediate existing contamination such that the site would meet residential contamination standards. This important information is only available in the EIR’s appendices. Burying this information in hundreds of pages of appendices does not remedy this omission from the EIR. Multiple courts have held that relevant information about a Project’s environmental impact must be presented in the EIR itself. “Information ‘scattered here and there in EIR appendices’ or a report ‘buried in an appendix’ is not a substitute for ‘a good faith reasoned analysis.” Vineyard Area Citizens for Responsible Growth v. City of Rancho Cordova (2007) 40 Cal.4th 412, 442. The EIR’s failure to disclose the above information renders the EIR inadequate as an informational document. 2. The EIR fails to provide a good faith reasoned response to comments from DTSC. Public and sister-agency participation is an essential part of the CEQA process. Public review of environmental documents serves the following purposes: (a) sharing expertise; (b) disclosing agency analyses; (c) checking for accuracy; (d) detecting omissions; (e) discovering public concerns; and (f) soliciting counter proposals. CEQA Guidelines, § 15200.