GILROY CITIZENS FOR RESPONSIBLE PLANNING v. CITY OF GILROY Part II
Citizens objecting to environmental impact report for proposed retail supercenter on ground that it failed to notify the public it tiered from EIR for earlier project for site on which the center would be located failed to exhaust administrative remedies where draft EIR identified the earlier EIR and several studies antecedent to it as connected to its preparation. Citizens did not object to the adequacy of disclosure during administrative proceedings when any notice error could easily have been corrected. Draft EIR is subject to 45-day notice requirement under CEQA rather than reasonable notice requirement applicable to final EIRs. Requirement of a 45-day comment period for draft EIRs is absolute. Finding that 45-day notice of availability of draft EIR was given by mail to persons entitled to such notice was supported by circumstantial evidence. Paticuarly pertaining to date of mailing, identities of recipients, absence of evidence to the contrary and presumption that official duty was regularly performed. City was entitled to conclude that urban decay impact of project had been adequately studied where record established that additional formal studies would not add information not already available to the city council when it voted to approve the project. Air quality impact did not preclude approval of project where EIR concluded that air pollution was a significant and unavoidable impact, but city approved the project on the basis of a statement of overriding considerations and all mitigation measures recommended in EIR were adopted.
Comments on GILROY CITIZENS FOR RESPONSIBLE PLANNING v. CITY OF GILROY Part II