2002 AGN MAY 07 I08 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

LAW OFFICES OF BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP reflect more accurately the pre -project environmental conditions. As long as lead agency explains the reason for the change and indicates why a different date is appropriate, it may use this approach. This case reiterates the well-established principle that an EIR must contain analysis in addition to raw data. When an EIR lacks such analysis, a decision based only on the raw data may be considered an abuse of discretion. In Sherwin Williams Company v. South Coast Air Quality Management District (2001) 86 Cal. App. 4th 1258, the Court found that the requirements of CEQA were satisfied when the California Air Resources Board (ARB) approved more stringent paint regulations that had been adopted by the South Coast Air Quality Management District as part of its certified regulatory program. Although the ARB had not conducted separate environmental analysis of the new regulations, the Court held that the ARB's action of approving the paint regulations did not constitute a "project" because the definition of "project" does not extend to each of the several approvals sequentially issued by different governmental agencies where there are no changes to the EIR or new adverse information. In Eller Media Company v. City of Los Angeles (2001) 87 Cal. App. 4th 1217, the plaintiff sought to have its applications for permits to construct three outdoor billboard structures deemed approved because the City had failed to make a determination on the applications within the time limits prescribed in the Permit Streamlining Act. However, the provisions of the Permit Streamlining Act that result in a project being deemed approved when the public agency fails to act on the application prior to the deadline are not triggered until CEQA review is complete. The plaintiffs allegation that CEQA analysis was not performed in a timely manner was insufficient to deem the applications approved, and plaintiffs action was therefore dismissed. In Berkeley Keep Jets Over the Bay Committee v. Board of Port Commissioners (2001) 91 Cal. App. 4th 1344, the Court made it clear that public agencies are required, under CEQA, to make a good faith effort at disclosure by using the best available data to assess a project's environmental impacts. The plaintiffs challenged the Board of Port Commissioners' certification of an EIR for an airport development plan designed to accommodate anticipated growth in passenger and cargo activity at Oakland International Airport. The Court found the EIR inadequate on several grounds, including the Port's reliance on outdated and inaccurate data in assessing the increased emission of toxic air contaminants from airplane engines. The Port had received comments on the draft EIR suggesting that the figures it was using to represent the levels of toxic air contaminants were outdated and it should use more recent figures which the California Air Resources Board considered to be the best available data for jet exhaust. However, the Port continued to rely on an earlier -published document, which indicated substantially lower levels of toxic air contaminant emissions from jet exhaust. The Court held that the Port did not meet the standard of a "good faith effort of full disclosure" required by CEQA because the Port was aware of more accurate data but rejected it without sufficient explanation. In Napa Citizens for Honest Government v. Napa County Board of Supervisors (2001) 91 Cal. App. 4th 342, the Court ruled that a public agency may delete an earlier -adopted mitigation measure as long as it states a legitimate reason for such action and supports that statement R'�TUB\Cn Y,6259(3