CORRESPONDANCE - 60A - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Honorable Mayor Pulido Santa Ana City Council January 21, 2020 Page 3 discussed above. (See Pet'n ¶25; 7:3-11; ¶35; 8:24-27 & Ex. C [copy of filed NOD].) This NOD triggered a thirty -day deadline to file suit. (Pub. Resources Code, §§ 21152, subds. (a), (c), 21167, subd. (b); Guidelines, § 15075(e).) Accordingly, SACRD was forced to file a petition challenging Council's determination on December 19, 2019. (See generally Pet'n ¶¶1-58; ¶¶1-8; 1:-13:12 & Exs. A—E.) 2. THE FEIR'S PROJECT DESCRIPTION/BASELINE STILL DOES NOT REFLECT SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS FROM NEW OFFSET INTERSECTIONS, CURB CUTS, AND THE SHARED PARKING AGREEMENT. As discussed in detail with respect to the proposed entitlements that existed while the public hearing was open, an environmental impact report or "EIR" is at the heart of CEQA. (See Guidelines, § 15124.) A proper EIR provides the public and governmental decision -makers with detailed information regarding a project's likely environmental effects, describes ways of mitigating such effects, and considers potential alternatives in lieu of mitigation. (Pub. Resources Code, §§ 21002.1, 21061, 21100.) An accurate project description "is the sine qua non of an informative and legally sufficient EIR." (County of Inyo v. City of L.A. (1977) 71 Cal.App.3d 185, 193, 199 (hereafter County of Inyo).) When a proposed project is accompanied by an inaccurate or incomplete description, it undermines CEQA by drawing "a red herring across the path of public input." (Id. at pp. 193, 199.) Because CEQA defines "project" as "the whole of an action," (Guidelines, § 15378; see Habitat & Watershed Caretakers v. City of Santa Cruz (2013) 213 Cal.AppAth 1277, 1297; Banning Ranch Conservancy v. City of Newport Beach (2012) 211 Cal.AppAth 1209, 1220 (hereafter Banning Ranch)), an EIR must also describe an entire proposed project —not a piecemealed version. (East Sacramento Partnership for a Livable City v. City of Sacramento (2016) 5 Cal.App.5th 281, 293; Banning Ranch, 211 Cal.AppAth at p. 1222; Communities for a Better Envt. v. City of Richmond (2010) 184 Cal.AppAth 70, 98.) To be complete, a project description must include future expansion or later phases of a project that will foreseeably result from project approval. (Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of Univ. of Cal (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376 (hereafter Laurel Heights); Guidelines, § 15126 [an EIR's impact analysis must consider all phases of project].) Additionally, an EIR's project description must be internally consistent; if not, it cannot provide a vehicle for informed public participation in the decision -making process. (County of Inyo, supra, 71 Cal.App.3d at p. 197 [shifting EIR description from groundwater pumping to replacing the entire aqueduct system].) An EIR is likewise of little value if it evaluates potential impacts, alternatives, and mitigation measures relative to a false or shifting starting point. The CEQA Guidelines acknowledge this by defining baseline conditions as reflecting the existing conditions, applicable plan designations, and zoning for the Project area at the time of 4516.101 18600269.1