Page 15 - gateking051309

A. CEQA and EIRs

As noted above, the “heart” of CEQA lies in its mandate that a government agency

shall prepare an EIR before approving a proposed project which may have a significant

effect on the environment. (Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of University
of California (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376, 392; and see also § 21100, subd. (a).) An EIR is

intended to be an informational document; its purpose is to provide public officials, and

the public, with information regarding the potential environmental consequences that a

proposed project may have on the environment, and to identify ways in which those

consequences may be minimized, and to indicate alternatives to the project, including a
“no project” alternative. (California Oak, supra, 133 Cal.App.4th at p. 1225; and see

also § 21061.) Once an EIR is adequately presented, the governing agency may find that

the project’s environmental effects have been reasonably mitigated, and approve the

project; or the agency may find that the unmitigated environmental effects of the project

are outweighed by the project’s benefits, and approve the project, or the agency may find
the adverse environmental effects are so profound that the project should not go forward,

in which case something else (or nothing else) must be done in place of the proposed

project. (California Oak, supra, 133 Cal.App.4th at p. 1225.)

In short, “[t]he purpose of CEQA is not to generate paper, but to compel

government at all levels to make decisions with environmental consequences in mind.”
(Bozung v. Local Agency Formation Com. (1975) 13 Cal.3d 263, 283.)

B. Analysis

We simply disagree with CWIN’s perspective that the City’s EIR/FAA for Gate

King’s proposed project –– when viewed as an informational document –– “never fully

admits or explains” the uncertainties which may be attendant with the transfer the 41,000
AFY of water from KCWA to CLWA. In our view, CWIN is just plain wrong that the

City’s EIR/FAA for Gate King’s proposed project fails to disclose –– and that is the

operative word –– that DWR may, in preparing its new EIR for the Monterey Agreement,

adopt mitigation measures which may undermine the continued availability of the

transfer of the 41,000 AFY of water from KCWA to CLWA.

15