Page 18 - gateking051309

suggestion about what sort of “something more” might, in the real world, be a realistic

possibility.

The City’s EIR/FAA for Gate King’s proposed project is now adequate.

II. The City’s Conclusions Are Supported by Substantial Evidence
CWIN argues the City’s recertification of its EIR/FAA for Gate King’s proposed

project must be vacated because the City’s conclusion that the 41,000 AFY of water is

reliable for planning purposes is not supported by substantial evidence. We disagree.

A. The Standard of Review

Noticeably absent from CWIN’s argument is any acknowledgment of just what the
concept of “substantial evidence” means in the context of judicial review of an agency’s

conclusions in the course of certifying an EIR. We begin our discussion of CWIN’s

substantial evidence claim by filling in that void.

Substantial evidence challenges in CEQA cases are resolved in the same manner

as substantial evidence claims in other settings: a reviewing court, whether at trial court
or on appeal, will resolve reasonable doubts in favor of the governing agency’s

administrative decision, and will not set aside an agency’s determination on the ground

that the opposite conclusion would have been equally or more reasonable. (County of

Amador v. El Dorado County Water Agency (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 931, 945-946, citing

Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of University of California, supra,
47 Cal.3d at pp. 392-393.) In other words, an appellate court’s review of the

administrative record for substantial evidence in a CEQA case “is the same” as the trial

court’s review of the administrative record. (Vineyard, supra, 40 Cal.4th at p. 427.) The

appellate court reviews the agency’s action, not the trial court’s decision, and, “in that

sense appellate judicial review under CEQA is de novo” insofar as the trial court’s
findings are concerned, but deferential to the agency’s findings where they are supported

by substantial evidence. (Ibid.) With this standard as our guide, we turn to an

examination of CWIN’s claim.

18