CORRESPONDANCE - 60A - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Honorable Mayor Pulido Santa Ana City Council November 19, 2019 Page 4 monetary sum (up to $35,000) in exchange for an agreement not to object to the Project. 2. THE FEIR'S PROJECT DESCRIPTION MAY BE INADEQUATE, RESULTING IN SIMILARLY FLAWED ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSES. An environmental impact report, commonly referred to as an "EIR," is at the heart of CEQA. (See 14 Cal. Code Regs., § 15124.) A proper EIR provides the public and governmental decision -makers with detailed information on a project's likely environmental effects, describes the ways of minimizing such effects, and considers potential alternatives to a project. (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.) A court will reject an EIR with an incomplete or inaccurate project description because, as the court stated in County of Inyo v. City of L.A.: Only through an accurate view of the project may affected outsiders and public decision -makers balance the proposal's benefit against its environmental cost, consider mitigation measures, assess the advantage of terminating the proposal (i.e., the "no project alternative") and weigh other alternatives in the balance. (Id. at p. 198.) Because CEQA defines "project" as "the whole of an action," (14 Cal. Code Regs., § 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 the entire proposed project —not a piecemeal 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.) 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); 14 Cal. Code Regs., § 15126 [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, 71 Cal.App.3d at p. 197 [shifting EIR description from groundwater pumping to replacing the entire aqueduct system].) 3917.101 18509864.1