Preserve Wild Santee v. City of Santee

–

A California Superior Court found that the absence of relevant information about project-specific wildfire evacuation impacts in an environmental impact report (EIR) for a mixed-use development constituted a prejudicial abuse of discretion. The court further found that the public “was not informed as to the extent to which the project would expose them to significant risk of loss, injury or death regarding evacuation timing” or “the risk of injury or death if residents are instructed to remain on site while the fires burn around them.” In addition, the court found that responses to comments about wildfire evacuation were inadequate and that the City of Santee violated the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) when it decided not to recirculate the EIR after an extension road was removed from the project. The court said the public was not provided an adequate opportunity to comment on the road removal’s impact on the wildland fire evacuation plan. The court did not address the petition’s allegations regarding inadequate analysis of greenhouse gas impacts.