11 ATTACHMENT 7 - Laserfiche WebLink

Ecology Center v. City and County of San Francisco, (1975) 48 Cal. App. 3d 584; Laurel Hills Homeowners Association v. City Council, (1978) 83 Cal. App. 3d SI S. Discussion: Section 15021 brings together the many separate elements that apply to the duty to minimize environmental damage. These duties appear in the policy sections of CEQA, in the findings requirement in Section 21081, and in a number of court decisions that have built up a body of case law that is not immediately reflected in the statutory language. This section is also necessary to provide one place to explain how the ultimate balancing of the merits of the project relates to the search for feasible alternatives or mitigation measures to avoid or reduce the environmental damage. The placement of this section early in the article on general responsibilities helps highlight this duty to prevent environmental damage. This section is an effort to provide a careful statement of the duty with its limitations and its relationship to other essential public goals. 151 Sl. Standards for Adequacy of an EIR An EIR should be prepared with a sufficient degree of analysis to provide decision- makers with information which enables them to make a decision which intelligently takes account of environmental consequences. An evaluation of the environmental effects of a proposed project need not be exhaustive, but the sufficiency of an EIR is to be reviewed in the light of what is reasonably feasible. Disagreement among experts does not make an EIR inadequate, but the EIR should summarize the main points of disagreement among the experts. The courts have looked not for perfection but for adequacy, completeness, and a good faith effort at full disclosure. Note.• Authority cited: Section 21083, Public Resources Code; Reference: Sections 21061 and 21100, Public Resources Code; San Francisco Ecology Center v. City and County of San Francisco, (1975) 48 Cal. App. 3d 584. Discussion: This section is a codification of case law dealing with the standards for adequacy of an EIR. In Concerned Citizens of Costa Mesa, Inc. v. 32nd District Agricultural Assoc. (1986) 42 Cal. 3d 929, the court held that "the EIR must contain facts and analysis, not just the agency's bare conclusions or opinions. " In Browning-Ferris Industries of California, Inc. v. San Jose (1986) 181 Cal. App. 3d 852, the court reasserted that an EIR is a disclosure document and as such an agency may choose among differing expert opinions when those arguments are correctly identified in a responsive manner. Further, the state Supreme Court in its 1988 Laurel Heights decision held that the purpose of CEQA is to compel government at all levels to make decisions with environmental consequences in mind. CEQA does not, indeed cannot, guarantee that these decisions will always be those which favor environmental considerations, nor does it require absolute perfection in an EIR. PUD-33, Oak Grove Planned Unit Development Planning Commission Page 6