SU0004094 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

L CEQA requires that an EIR be prepared with a sufficient degree of analysis to provide decision-makers with information that enables them to make an informed decision regarding environmental consequences. (CEQA Section 15151.) For example, 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, L not just the agency's bare conclusions or opinions." Here, the EIR contains conclusions and opinions but lacks a demonstration of its analysis. Thus, the B-5 conclusions presented in the Draft EIR's air quality analysis in Section 4.6 are ` unsupported and deprive the public of the opportunity for proper review. In light of the inadequacies and erroneous conclusions regarding impacts on air quality from both Project construction and operations outlined in the comments below, this omission is troublesome. The Draft EIR should be revised to contain sufficient . information for a reviewer to verify the presented results and be recirculated for 'r public review. The County was first asked on June 6, 2006 to make the above information L' available for review.2 After repeated e-mails, a letter, and phone requests to the County, Environmental Science Associates ("ESA"), the EIR preparer, made the 6. electronic files available for review on June 21, 2006. These spreadsheets contain supporting calculations for Project construction and operation emissions. These B-6 spreadsheets are attached hereto in their native format as Exhibit 1. These spreadsheets contain critical information about the Project and the emission estimates that could not have been discovered otherwise. Further, they indicate that that many errors were made in estimating Project emissions. These spreadsheets should have been included in an appendix to the Draft EIR and should have been made available at the time the Draft EER was released. Because the material in these spreadsheets is very complex and poorly organized and annotated (no summary tables indicating how the emissions in the Draft EIWs B-7 Table 4.6-5 were derived, missing or incorrect row and column headings, missing or incorrect units of measure throughout), the absence of this information in a timely manner seriously impaired our ability to thoroughly review it. (See Comment III.) Thus, we reserve our right to supplement these comments. L L2 John Williams,Williams Research,Email to Chandler Martin,San Joaquin County, Re:RMC Information Request,June 6,2006. L 3 L