RDA Reso 2001-010 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

,. Ms. Debbie Pollart And Redevelopment Agency Members September 17, 2001 Page 2 The purpose of the CEQA is to require public agencies to evaluate and document the environmental implications of their actions prior to approval of a project. (Pub. Resources Code, § § 21000, 21001; Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15002(a); Friends of Mammoth v. Board of Supervisors (1972) 8 Ca1.3d 247, 254-256.} A "project" under CEQA is, "the whole of an action, which has a potential for resulting in either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment...." (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15378.) An agency may not omit a segment of the project when analyzing the entire project area. The agency, "must consider the whole of an action, not simply its constituent parts, when determining whether it will have a significant environmental effect." (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15003(h); Citizens Association for Sensible Development v. Count~of Invo (1985) 172 Ca1.App.3d 151.) In other words, the agency may not, "subdivide a single project into smaller individual subprojects in order to avoid the responsibility of considering the environmental impact of the project as a whole." (Orinda Association v. Board of Supervisors (1986) 182 Cal.App.3d 1145, 1171 [holding that the government had to consider the demolition of two buildings since they were part of the project as a whole].) The requirements of CEQA cannot be avoided by "chopping up proposed projects" so individually they do not have a significant effect, but the project considered cumulatively may have such an effect. (Plan for Arcadia. Inc. v. Cif Council of Arcadia (1974) 42 Cal.App.3d 712, 726.) The standard for reviewing an agency's compliance with CEQA is: (1) does substantial evidence support the agency's decision; and (2) did the agency abuse its discretion by failing to proceed in the manner required by law. (Pub. Resources Code, § § 21168, 21168.5; Western States Petroleum Association v. Superior Court (1995) 9 Ca1.4th 559, 573.) If an agency's actions do not substantially comply with the requirements of CEQA, it will be found to have abused its discretion by failing to proceed in the manner required by law. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21168, 21168.5; Laurel Hei htg s Improvement Association v. Regents of the University of alifornia (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376, 392.) Here, the Agency has failed to proceed in a manner ~~equired by law and has therefore abused its discretion by improperly segmenting out a portion of the project. In order to come into compliance with the clear mandates of CEQA and interpreting case law, the Agency must consider the 936 Marina Boulevard property in its environmental review process. 2. Agency's Exception is Inapplicable. In the Project Description the Agency states that the property on 936 Marina Boulevard,. on which an automobile dealership and service center will be developed, is exempt from CEQA review under CEQA Guidelines section 15332. (MND p. 1.) However, the Agency's cited exception to CEQA review is inapplicable to the current situation. MRTL\38756\443627. ]