Correspondence - #33 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

DOWDALL LAW OFFICES A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION ATTO R N EYS AT LAW City Council of the City of Santa Ana City of Santa Ana September 16, 2021 Page 14 Even cursory examination of the California Environmental Quality Act (commencing at Public Resources Code Sections 21000, et seq.) ("CEQA") reveals that the project consisting of the passage of a municipal ordinance mandates the public comment, deliberation, analysis, and preparation of an Environmental Impact Report. Considering the incontrovertible devastation rent control has brought to many communities throughout the country, it is clear that there is a fair argument, supported by substantial evidence, that rent controls can have a significantly detrimental and adverse impact on the environment. Legally, the City must prepare an Environmental Impact Report, if there is "substantial evidence" which supports a "fair argument" that the project (i.e., the passage of the ordinance) may have a "significant environmental impact." Several cases stand for this proposition. One of the latest is Chamberlin v. City of Palo Alto (1986) 186 Cal.App.3d 181, 189. "Substantial evidence" is the least difficult review standard to be satisfied. Merely, satisfaction of the "substantial evidence test" involves no more than a showing of any fact sustaining the argument that rent control could affect the environment. If any substantial evidence supports such an argument, any other contradictory fact or facts which predominate, are convincing, persuasive, or believed or not, are of no moment. If there is any substantial evidence of a potential for an environmental effect, the finding must be sustained, and an Environmental Impact Report must be prepared. Thus, if there is any substantial evidence provided to show that there is a possibility of a significantly adverse environmental impact, it does not matter if the City Fathers find that such evidence is outweighed by contradictory evidence, whether such evidence is more or less credible than any other evidence, or whether such evidence fails to preponderate in the totality of considerations. Rather, the mere finding that there is any substantial evidence in support of the argument that the ordinance could have a significant adverse environmental impact requires, without more, that the Environmental Impact Report be prepared. Indeed, the rules of law respecting "substantial evidence" require, further, that the City Fathers construe and interpret the totality of the evidence most in favor of the opponent of the legislation. The substantial evidence offered by the opponent is to be construed in the light most favorable to a finding of adverse environmental impact. In Chamberlin, the court specifically held as follows: "...An agency's adoption of a negative declaration is not to be upheld merely because substantial evidence was presented that the project would not have such impact. Ile ... court's function is to determine whether substantial evidence supported the agency's conclusion as to whether the prescribed 'fair argument' could be made. If there was substantial evidence that the proposed project might have a significant environmental impact, evidence to the contrary is not sufficient to support a decision to dispense with preparation of an FIR...." 186 Cal.App.3d at 189 [Citing Friends of "B" Street v. City of Hayward (1980) 106 Cal.App.3d 988, at 1002]. -14-