Item No. 2 Public Comment_Yundt - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Comment on Garry Avenue Business Park Project Planning Commission Agenda Item 2 (Amendment Application No. 2022 -01; Conditional Use Permit No. 2022-14) October 10, 2022 Page 3 of 7 the lead agency, that the project may have a significant effect on the environment.” (PRC § 21080(d); see also, Pocket Protectors, 124 Cal.App.4th at 927.) In very limited circumstances, an agency may avoid preparing an EIR by issuing a negative declaration, a written statement briefly indicating that a project will have no significant impact thus requiring no EIR (14 CCR § 15371), only if there is not even a “fair argument” that the project will have a significant environmental effect. (PRC §§ 21100, 21064.) Since “[t]he adoption of a negative declaration . . . has a terminal effect on the environmental review process,” by allowing the agency “to dispense with the duty [to prepare an EIR],” negative declarations are allowed only in cases where “the proposed project will not affect the environment at all.” (Citizens of Lake Murray v. San Diego (1989) 129 Cal.App.3d 436, 440.) To achieve its objectives of environmental protection, CEQA has a three-tiered structure. (14 CCR § 15002(k); Committee to Save the Hollywoodland Specific Plan v. City of Los Angeles (2008) 161 Cal.App.4th 1168, 1185-86 [“Hollywoodland”].) First, if a project falls into an exempt category, or it can be seen with certainty that the activity in question will not have a significant effect on the environment, no further agency evaluation is required. Id. Second, if there is a possibility the project will have a significant effect on the environment, the agency must perform an initial threshold study. (Id.; 14 CCR § 15063(a).) If the study indicates that there is no substantial evidence that the project or any of its aspects may cause a significant effect on the environment the agency may issue a negative declaration. (Id.; 14 CCR §§ 15063(b)(2), 15070.) Finally, if the project will have a significant effect on the environment, an environmental impact report (“EIR”) is required. (Id.) Here, since the City exempted the Project from CEQA entirely, the first step of the CEQA process applies. CEQA identifies certain classes of projects which are exempt from the provisions of CEQA. These are called categorical exemptions. (14 CCR §§ 15300, 15354.) “Exemptions to CEQA are narrowly construed and ‘[e]xemption categories are not to be expanded beyond the reasonable scope of their statutory language.’ (Citations).” (Mountain Lion Foundation v. Fish & Game Com. (1997) 16 Cal.4th 105, 125.) The determination as to the appropriate scope of a categorical exemption is a question of law subject to independent, or de novo, review. (San Lorenzo Valley Community Advocates for Responsible Education v. San Lorenzo Valley Unified School Dist., (2006) 139 Cal. App. 4th 1356, 1375 (“[Q]uestions of interpretation or application of the requirements of CEQA are matters of law. (Citations.) Thus, for example, interpreting the scope of a CEQA exemption presents ‘a question of law, subject to de novo review by this court.’ (Citations).”).) In addition, there are several exceptions to CEQA’s categorical exemptions. (See, 14 CCR § 15300.2.) At least one exception is relevant here: Significant Effects. A project may never be exempted from CEQA if there is a “fair argument” that the project may have significant environmental impacts due to “unusual circumstances.” 14 CCR § 15300.2(c). The Supreme Court has held that since the agency may only exempt activities that do not have a significant effect on the environment, a fair argument that a project will have significant