Laserfiche WebLink
City of Santa Ana— First American Mixed -Use Project [114 and 117 East Fifth Street] — Comments to City Council <br />November 18, 2019 <br />Page 4 of 13 <br />Valley v. Board of Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal. 3d 553, 564. The EIR has been described as <br />"an environmental `alarm bell' whose purpose it is to alert the public and its <br />responsible officials to environmental changes before they have reached ecological <br />points of no return." Berkeley Keep Jets Over the Bay P. Bd. of Port Commis. (2001) 91 Cal. <br />App. 4th 1344, 1354 ("Berkeley Jets'; County of Inyo v. Yorty (1973) 32 Cal.App.3d 795, <br />810. <br />Second, CEQA directs public agencies to avoid or reduce environmental damage when <br />possible by requiring alternatives or mitigation measures. CEQA Guidelines 5 <br />15002(a) (2) and (3). See also, Berkeley Jets, 91 Cal. App. 4th 1344, 1354; Citi-Zens of Goleta <br />Valley v. Board of Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal.3d 553; Laurel Heights Improvement Assn v. <br />Regents of the University of California (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376, 400. The EIR serves to provide <br />public agencies and the public in general with information about the effect that a <br />proposed project is likely to have on the environment and to "identify ways that <br />environmental damage can be avoided or significantly reduced." CEQA Guidelines 5 <br />15002(a)(2). If the project has a significant effect on the environment, the agency may <br />approve the project only upon finding that it has "eliminated or substantially lessened <br />all significant effects on the environment where feasible" and that any unavoidable <br />significant effects on the environment are "acceptable due to overriding concerns" <br />specified in CEQA section 21081. CEQA Guidelines § 15092(b)(2)(A—B). <br />While the courts review an EIR using an "abuse of discretion" standard, "the <br />reviewing court is not to `uncritically rely on every study or analysis presented by a <br />project proponent in support of its position.' A `clearly inadequate or unsupported <br />study is entitled to no judicial deference."' Berkeley Jets, 91 Cal.App.4th 1344, 1355 <br />(emphasis added) (quoting Laurel Heights, 47 Cal.3d at 391, 409 fn. 12). Drawing this <br />line and determining whether the EIR complies with CEQA's information disclosure <br />requirements presents a question of law subject to independent review by the courts. <br />(Sierra Club P. Cnty. of Fresno (2018) 6 Cal. 502, 515; Madera Oversight Coalition, Inc. v. <br />County of Madera (2011) 199 Cal.App.4th 48, 102, 131.) As the court stated in Berkeley <br />Jets, 91 Cal. App. 4th at 1355: <br />A prejudicial abuse of discretion occurs "if the failure to include relevant <br />information precludes informed decision -making and informed public <br />participation, thereby thwarting the statutory goals of the EIR process. <br />The preparation and circulation of an EIR is more than a set of technical hurdles for <br />agencies and developers to overcome. The EIR's function is to ensure that <br />