3 - The Bowery_PUBLIC COMMENT_RAMSEY

Home Browse Search

City of Santa Ana – The Bowery May 11, 2020 Page 14 of 28 environmental impact. (CEQA Guidelines § 15126.4(a)(1)(B) [providing “[f]ormulation of mitigation measures should not be deferred until some future time.”].) While the same Guidelines section 15126.5(a)(1)(B) acknowledges an exception to the rule against deferrals, but such exception is narrowly proscribed to situations where “measures may specify performance standards which would mitigate the significant effect of the project and which may be accomplished in more than one specified way.” (Id.) Courts have also recognized a similar exception to the general rule against deferral of mitigation measures where the performance criteria for each mitigation measure is identified and described in the EIR. (Sacramento Old City Ass’n v. City Council (1991) 229 Cal. App. 3d 1011.) Impermissible deferral can occur when an EIR calls for mitigation measures to be created based on future studies or describes mitigation measures in general terms but the agency fails to commit itself to specific performance standards. (Preserve Wild Santee v. City of Santee (2012) 210 Cal. App. 4th 260, 281 [city improperly deferred mitigation to butterfly habitat by failing to provide standards or guidelines for its management]; San Joaquin Raptor Rescue Center v. County of Merced (2007) 149 Cal. App. 4th 645, 671 [EIR failed to provide and commit to specific criteria or standard of performance for mitigating impacts to biological habitats]; see also Cleveland Nat'l Forest Found. v San Diego Ass'n of Gov'ts (2017) 17 Cal. App. 5th 413, 442 [generalized air quality measures in the EIR failed to set performance standards]; California Clean Energy Comm. v City of Woodland (2014) 225 Cal. App. 4th 173, 195 [agency could not rely on a future report on urban decay with no standards for determining whether mitigation required]; POET, LLC v. State Air Resources Bd. (2013) 218 Cal. App. 4th 681, 740 [agency could not rely on future rulemaking to establish specifications to ensure emissions of nitrogen oxide would not increase because it did not establish objective performance criteria for measuring whether that goal would be achieved]; Gray v. County of Madera (2008) 167 Cal. App. 4th 1099, 1119 [rejecting mitigation measure requiring replacement water to be provided to neighboring landowners because it identified a general goal for mitigation rather than specific performance standard]; Endangered Habitats League, Inc. v. County of Orange (2005) 131 Cal. App. 4th 777, 794 [requiring report without established standards is impermissible delay].)