Laserfiche WebLink
Metadata
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015 Laserfiche. All rights reserved.
City of Santa Ana – The Bowery <br />May 11, 2020 <br />Page 5 of 28 <br />project proponent in support of its position.’ A ‘clearly inadequate or unsupported <br />study is entitled to no judicial deference.’” (Berkeley Jets, supra, 91 Cal. App. 4th 1344, <br />1355 [emphasis added, quoting Laurel Heights, 47 Cal. 3d at 391, 409 fn. 12]. Drawing <br />this line and determining whether the EIR complies with CEQA’s information <br />disclosure requirements presents a question of law subject to independent review by <br />the courts. (Sierra Club v. Cnty. of Fresno (2018) 6 Cal. 5th 502, 515; Madera Oversight <br />Coalition, Inc. v. County of Madera (2011) 199 Cal. App. 4th 48, 102, 131.) As the court <br />stated in Berkeley Jets, supra, 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 />government officials who decide to build or approve a project do so with a full <br />understanding of the environmental consequences and, equally important, that the <br />public is assured those consequences have been considered. For the EIR to serve these <br />goals it must present information so that the foreseeable impacts of pursuing the <br />project can be understood and weighed, and the public must be given an adequate <br />opportunity to comment on that presentation before the decision to go forward is <br />made. (Communities for a Better Environment v. Richmond (2010) 184 Cal. App. 4th 70, 80 <br />[quoting Vineyard Area Citizens for Responsible Growth, Inc. v. City of Rancho Cordova (2007) <br />40 Cal. 4th 412, 449–450].) <br />B. The EIR Fails to Maintain a Stable and Consistent Project Description <br />“[A]n accurate, stable and finite project description is the sine qua non of an <br />informative and legally sufficient” environmental document. (County of Inyo v. City of <br />Los Angeles (1977) 71 Cal. App. 3d 185, 200.) “A curtailed or distorted project <br />description may stultify the objectives of the reporting process” as an accurate, stable <br />and finite project description is necessary to allow “affected outsiders and public <br />decision-makers balance the proposal's benefit against its environmental cost, consider <br />mitigation measures, assess the advantage of terminating the proposal (i.e., the "no <br />project" alternative) and weigh other alternatives in the balance. (Id. at 192 – 93.) <br />Courts determine de novo whether an agency proceeded “in a manner required by <br />law” in maintaining a stable and consistent project description. (Id. at 200.)