AgdaPkt 2015-09-21 Joint Special SAF PAF

Browse Search

disclosure requirements constitutes a prejudicial abuse of discretion when the omission of relevant information has precluded informed decisionmaking and informed public participation, regardless whether a different outcome would have resulted if the public agency had complied with the disclosure requirements. [Citations.] (Bold added.) See also, Uphold Our Heritage v Town of Woodside (2007) 147 Cal.App.4d' 587, 596. If the EIR alternatives are feasible and would mitigate or better mitigate any significant environmental impacts, then they must be selected/followed in order to approve a project, otherwise the project must be rejected. If the EIR alternatives are not feasible, then the project must be denied (unless there are overriding considerations) because the project will otherwise be in violation of CEQA. CEQA defines "feasible" as capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, social, and technological factors." Public Resources Code §21061.1; CEQA Guidelines §15364. Petitioners ask this Court to consider the standard of review discussed in Vineyard Area Citizens for Responsible Growth Inc v City of Rancho Cordova (2007) 40 Cal.4s' 412. The ViMard decision does not require any different standard of review than that set forth above. In ViM the CEQA project involved creation of a master plan community on 6000 acres, for 22,000 residential units, population of 60,000 people, school, parks, businesses, etc. — in other words, the creation of a town. The County Board of Supervisors passed resolutions and ordinances that amended the County's general plan and zoning ordinances to approve the project, as well as certifying an EIR. 0 nevard at p. 422. The California Supreme Court found this to be "legislative or quasi - legislative action" -- not quasi-judicial action, like in our case — because of the passage of laws to 3, 8.B. - Page 65