3 - The Bowery_PUBLIC COMMENT (SAFER)

Home Browse Search

The Bowery Mixed-Use Project CEQA Comment May 11, 2020 Page 7 Legislature has made clear—in declarations accompanying CEQA’s enactment—that public health and safety are of great importance in the statutory scheme.” Id., citing e.g., §§ 21000, subds. (b), (c), (d), (g), 21001, subds. (b), (d). It goes without saying that the hundreds of future residents and employees of the Project are human beings and the health and safety of those individuals is as important to CEQA’s safeguards as nearby residents currently living and working near the project site. Mr. Offermann’s expert comments constitute substantial evidence of a fair argument of a significant environmental impact to future users of the project, but this potentially significant impact is not analyzed in the EIR. A revised EIR must be prepared to disclose and mitigate those impacts. B. THE EIR FAILS TO ADEQUATELY ANALYZE AND MITIGATE TRAFFIC IMPACTS. As detailed more fully in the attached comments of traffic engineer Dan Smith (Ex. B), the Project will have significant impacts on traffic that have either been underestimated or have not been addressed at all in the EIR. By failing to disclose the full extent of the Project’s traffic impacts, the EIR fails as an informational document. 1. The EIR violets CEQA because it relies on a hypothetical baseline rather than conditions that exist at the time environmental analysis begins. Every CEQA document must start from a “baseline” assumption. The CEQA “baseline” is the set of environmental conditions against which to compare a project’s anticipated impacts. Cmty. for a Better Env’t v. So. Coast Air Qual. Mgmnt. Dist. (2010) 48 Cal. 4th 310, 321. Section 15125(a) of the CEQA Guidelines (14 C.C.R., § 15125(a)) states in pertinent part that a lead agency’s environmental review under CEQA: “…must include a description of the physical environmental conditions in the vicinity of the project, as they exist at the time [environmental analysis] is commenced, from both a local and regional perspective. This environmental setting will normally constitute the baseline physical conditions by which a Lead Agency determines whether an impact is significant.” See, Save Our Peninsula Committee v. County of Monterey (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 99, 124-125. As the court of appeal has explained, “the impacts of the project must be measured against the ‘real conditions on the ground,’” and not against hypothetical permitted levels. (Save Our Peninsula, 87 Cal.App.4th at 121-123. Using such a skewed baseline “mislead(s) the public” and “draws a red herring across the path of public input.” San Joaquin Raptor Rescue Center v. County of Merced (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 645, 656; Woodward Park Homeowners v. City of Fresno (2007) 150 Cal.App.4th 683, 708-711.