California Code of Regulations › Title 14 - Natural Resources › Division 6 - Resources Agency › Chapter 3 - Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act › Article 1 - General › Section 15003 - Policies

Current through Register 2024 Notice Reg. No. 28, July 12, 2024
In addition to the policies declared by the Legislature
					 concerning environmental protection and administration of CEQA in Sections
					 21000,
					 21001,
					 21002,
					 and
					 21002.1
					 of the Public Resources Code, the courts of this state have declared the
					 following policies to be implicit in CEQA:
(a) The EIR requirement is the heart of CEQA.
				  (
County of Inyo v. Yorty
, 32 Cal. App. 3d 795.)
(b) The EIR serves not only to protect the
				  environment but also to demonstrate to the public that it is being protected.
				  (
County of Inyo v. Yorty
, 32 Cal. App. 3d 795.)
(c) The EIR is to inform other governmental
				  agencies and the public generally of the environmental impact of a proposed
				  project. (
No Oil, Inc. v. City of Los Angele
s, 13 C. 3d
				  68.)
(d) The EIR is to demonstrate
				  to an apprehensive citizenry that the agency has, in fact, analyzed and
				  considered the ecological implications of its action. (
People ex rel.
				  Department of Public Works v. Bosio
, 47 Cal. App. 3d 495.)
(e) The EIR process will enable the public to
				  determine the environmental and economic values of their elected and appointed
				  officials thus allowing for appropriate action come election day should a
				  majority of the voters disagree. (
People v. County of Kern
, 39
				  Cal. App. 3d 830.)
(f) CEQA was
				  intended to be interpreted in such a manner as to afford the fullest possible
				  protection to the environment within the reasonable scope of the statutory
				  language. (
Friends of Mammoth v. Board of Supervisors
, 8 Cal.
				  3d 247.)
(g) The 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. LAFCO
(1975) 13 Cal.3d 263)
(h) The lead
				  agency must consider the whole of an action, not simply its constituent parts,
				  when determining whether it will have a significant environmental effect.
				  (
Citizens Assoc. For Sensible Development of Bishop Area v. County of
				  Inyo
(1985) 172 Cal.App.3d 151)
(i) CEQA does not require technical
				  perfection in an EIR, but rather adequacy, completeness, and a good-faith
				  effort at full disclosure. A court does not pass upon the correctness of an
				  EIR's environmental conclusions, but only determines if the EIR is sufficient
				  as an informational document. (
Kings County Farm Bureau v. City of
				  Hanford
(1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 692)
(j) CEQA requires that decisions be informed
				  and balanced. It must not be subverted into an instrument for the oppression
				  and delay of social, economic, or recreational development or advancement.
				  (
Laurel Heights Improvement Assoc. v. Regents of U.C.
(1993) 6
				  Cal.4th 1112 and
Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of
				  Supervisors
(1990) 52 Cal.3d 553)
1. New
					 section filed 7-13-83; effective thirtieth day thereafter (Register 83, No.
					 29).
2. Editorial correction of 7-13-83 order redesignating
					 effective date to 8-1-83 filed 7-14-83 (Register 83, No. 29).
3.
					 Editorial correction of 7-13-83 order filed 7-26-83 (Register 83, No.
					 33).
4. New subsections (g)-(j) filed 10-26-98; operative 10-26-98
					 pursuant to Public Resources Code section
					 21087
					 (Register 98, No. 44).
5. Change without regulatory effect amending
					 NOTE filed 10-6-2005 pursuant to section
					 100, title 1, California Code of
					 Regulations (Register 2005, No. 40).
Note: Authority cited: Section
						21083,
						Public Resources Code. Reference: Sections
						21000-
						21176,
						Public Resources Code.