3 - The Bowery_PUBLIC COMMENT (SAFER)

Home Browse Search

The Bowery Mixed-Use Project CEQA Comment May 11, 2020 Page 4 participation, thereby thwarting the statutory goals of the EIR process.” (San Joaquin Raptor/Wildlife Rescue Center v. County of Stanislaus (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 713, 722; Galante Vineyards v. Monterey Peninsula Water Management Dist. (1997) 60 Cal. App. 4th 1109, 1117; County of Amador v. El Dorado County Water Agency (1999) 76 Cal. App. 4th 931, 946.) More recently, the California Supreme Court has emphasized that: When reviewing whether a discussion is sufficient to satisfy CEQA, a court must be satisfied that the EIR (1) includes sufficient detail to enable those who did not participate in its preparation to understand and to consider meaningfully the issues the proposed project raises [citation omitted].... (Sierra Club v. Cty. of Fresno (2018) 6 Cal.5th 502, 510 (2018), citing Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of University of California (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376, 405.) The Court in Sierra Club v. Cty. of Fresno also emphasized at another primary consideration of sufficiency is whether the EIR “makes a reasonable effort to substantively connect a project’s air quality impacts to likely health consequences.” (6 Cal.5th at 510.) “Whether or not the alleged inadequacy is the complete omission of a required discussion or a patently inadequate one- paragraph discussion devoid of analysis, the reviewing court must decide whether the EIR serves its purpose as an informational document.” (Id. at 516.) Although an agency has discretion to decide the manner of discussing potentially significant effects in an EIR, “a reviewing court must determine whether the discussion of a potentially significant effect is sufficient or insufficient, i.e., whether the EIR comports with its intended function of including ‘detail sufficient to enable those who did not participate in its preparation to understand and to consider meaningfully the issues raised by the proposed project.’” (6 Cal.5th at 516, citing Bakersfield Citizens for Local Control v. City of Bakersfield (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 1184, 1197.) “The determination whether a discussion is sufficient is not solely a matter of discerning whether there is substantial evidence to support the agency’s factual conclusions.” (6 Cal.5th at 516.) As the Court emphasized (Sierra Club v. Cty. of Fresno, 6 Cal.5th at 514.): [W]hether a description of an environmental impact is insufficient because it lacks analysis or omits the magnitude of the impact is not a substantial evidence question. A conclusory discussion of an environmental impact that an EIR deems significant can be determined by a court to be inadequate as an informational document without reference to substantial evidence. In general, mitigation measures must be designed to minimize, reduce or avoid an identified environmental impact or to rectify or compensate for that impact. (CEQA Guidelines § 15370.) Where several mitigation measures are available to mitigate an impact, each should be discussed and the basis for selecting a particular measure should be identified. (Id. at § 15126.4(a)(1)(B).) A lead agency may not make the required CEQA findings unless the administrative record clearly shows that all uncertainties regarding the mitigation of significant environmental impacts have been resolved.