Laserfiche WebLink
May 6, 2021 <br />Page 4 <br /> <br /> <br />5005-003acp <br /> <br /> printed on recycled paper <br />the potential, significant environmental impacts of a project before harm is done to <br />the environment.4 The EIR is the “heart” of this requirement.5 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.”6 <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.”7 An adequate EIR must <br />contain facts and analysis, not just an agency’s conclusions.8 CEQA requires an <br />EIR to disclose all potential direct and indirect, significant environmental impacts <br />of a project.9 <br /> <br />Second, 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.10 If an EIR <br />identifies potentially significant impacts, it must then propose and evaluate <br />mitigation measures to minimize these impacts.11 CEQA imposes an affirmative <br />obligation on agencies to avoid or reduce environmental harm by adopting feasible <br />project alternatives or mitigation measures.12 Without an adequate analysis and <br />description of feasible mitigation measures, it would be impossible for agencies <br />relying upon the EIR to meet this obligation. <br /> <br />Under CEQA, an EIR must not only discuss measures to avoid or minimize <br />adverse impacts, but must ensure that mitigation conditions are fully enforceable <br />through permit conditions, agreements or other legally binding instruments.13 A <br />CEQA lead agency is precluded from making the required CEQA findings unless the <br /> <br />4 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 />5 No Oil, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (1974) 13 Cal.3d 68, 84. <br />6 County of Inyo v. Yorty (1973) 32 Cal.App.3d 795, 810. <br />7 CEQA Guidelines § 15151; San Joaquin Raptor/Wildlife Rescue Center v. County of Stanislaus <br />(1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 713, 721-722. <br />8 See Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal.3d 553, 568. <br />9 Pub. Resources Code § 21100(b)(1); CEQA Guidelines § 15126.2(a). <br />10 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 />11 Pub. Resources Code §§ 21002.1(a), 21100(b)(3). <br />12 Id., §§ 21002-21002.1. <br />13 CEQA Guidelines § 15126.4(a)(2). <br />94