Laserfiche WebLink
May 19, 2021 <br />Page 5 <br /> <br /> <br />5005-004acp <br /> <br /> printed on recycled paper <br />businesses to locate and people to live there. Indeed, continued degradation can, <br />and has, caused restrictions on growth that reduce future employment <br />opportunities. Finally, East Bay Residents members are concerned about projects <br />that present environmental and land use impacts without providing countervailing <br />economic and community benefits. <br /> <br />I. LEGAL BACKGROUND <br /> <br />CEQA has two basic purposes, neither of which is satisfied by the CEQA <br />Analysis. First, CEQA is designed to inform decision makers and the public about <br />the potential, significant environmental impacts of a project before harm is done to <br />the environment.9 The EIR is the “heart” of this requirement.10 The EIR has been <br />described as “an environmental ‘alarm bell’ whose purpose it is to alert the public <br />and its responsible officials to environmental changes before they have reached <br />ecological points of no return.”11 <br /> <br /> To fulfill this function, the discussion of impacts in an EIR must be detailed, <br />complete, and reflect a good faith effort at full disclosure.”12 An adequate EIR must <br />contain facts and analysis, not just an agency’s conclusions.13 CEQA requires an <br />EIR to disclose all potential direct and indirect, significant environmental impacts <br />of a project.14 <br /> <br /> Further, CEQA directs public agencies to avoid or reduce environmental <br />damage when possible by requiring imposition of mitigation measures and by <br />requiring the consideration of environmentally superior alternatives.15 If an EIR <br />identifies potentially significant impacts, it must then propose and evaluate <br />mitigation measures to minimize these impacts.16 CEQA imposes an affirmative <br />obligation on agencies to avoid or reduce environmental harm by adopting feasible <br /> <br />9 14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15002(a)(1) (“CEQA Guidelines”); Berkeley Keep Jets Over the Bay v. Bd. of <br />Port Comm’rs. (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 1344, 1354 (“Berkeley Jets”); County of Inyo v. Yorty (1973) 32 <br />Cal.App.3d 795, 810. <br />10 No Oil, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (1974) 13 Cal.3d 68, 84. <br />11 County of Inyo v. Yorty (1973) 32 Cal.App.3d 795, 810. <br />12 CEQA Guidelines § 15151; San Joaquin Raptor/Wildlife Rescue Center v. County of Stanislaus <br />(1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 713, 721-722. <br />13 See Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal.3d 553, 568. <br />14 Pub. Resources Code § 21100(b)(1); CEQA Guidelines § 15126.2(a). <br />15 CEQA Guidelines § 15002(a)(2) and (3); Berkeley Jets, 91 Cal.App.4th at 1354; Laurel Heights <br />Improvement Ass’n v. Regents of the University of Cal. (1998) 47 Cal.3d 376, 400. <br />16 Pub. Resources Code §§ 21002.1(a), 21100(b)(3). <br />64