SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL - Laserfiche WebLink

November 8, 2024 Page 5 7357-013acp printed on recycled paper changes before they have reached ecological points of no return.”14 “Thus, the EIR protects not only the environment but also informed self-government.”15 Second, CEQA directs public agencies to avoid or reduce environmental damage when possible by requiring alternatives or mitigation measures.16 The EIR serves to provide public agencies and the public in general with information about the effect that a proposed project is likely to have on the environment and to “identify ways that environmental damage can be avoided or significantly reduced.”17 If a project has a significant effect on the environment, the agency may approve the project only upon a finding that it has “eliminated or substantially lessened all significant effects on the environment where feasible,” and that any unavoidable significant effects on the environment are “acceptable due to overriding concerns” specified in CEQA section 21081.18 While the courts review an EIR using an “abuse of discretion” standard, “the reviewing court is not to ‘uncritically rely on every study or analysis presented by a project proponent in support of its position. A clearly inadequate or unsupported study is entitled to no judicial deference.”19 As the courts have explained, “a prejudicial abuse of discretion occurs “if the failure to include relevant information precludes informed decision-making and informed public participation, thereby thwarting the statutory goals of the EIR process.”20 “The ultimate inquiry, as case law and the CEQA guidelines make clear, is whether the EIR includes enough detail ‘to enable who did not participate in its preparation to understand and to consider meaningfully the issues raised by the proposed project.’”21 As these comments will demonstrate, the DEIR fails to comply with the requirements of CEQA and may not be used as the basis for approving the Project. It fails in significant aspects to perform its function as an informational document that is meant “to provide public agencies and the public in general with detailed information about the effect which a proposed project is likely to have on the 14 County of Inyo v. Yorty (1973) 32 Cal.App.3d 795, 810. 15 Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Bd. of Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal.3d 553, 564 (citations omitted). 16 CEQA Guidelines, § 15002, subd. (a)(2)-(3); Berkeley Jets, supra, 91 Cal.App.4th at 1354. 17 CEQA Guidelines, § 15002, subd. (a)(2). 18 Id., subd. (b)(2)(A)-(B). 19 Berkeley Jets, 91 Cal. App. 4th 1344, 1355 (emphasis added), quoting, Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of University of California (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376, 391 409, fn. 12. 20 Berkeley Jets, 91 Cal.App.4th at 1355; San Joaquin Raptor/Wildlife Rescue Center v. County of Stanislaus (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 713, 722; Galante Vineyards v. Monterey Peninsula Water Management Dist. (1997) 60 Cal.App.4th 1109, 1117; County of Amador v. El Dorado County Water Agency (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 931, 946. 21 Sierra Club v. County of Fresno (2018) 6 Cal.5th 502, 516, quoting Laurel Heights, 47 Cal.3d at 405.