RDA Reso 2001-010 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Ms. Debbie Pollart And Redevelopment Agency Members September 17, 2001 Page 3 Guidelines section 15332 is a categorical exemption for in-fill development projects. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15332.) However, this regulation is subjected to the limiting factors in Guidelines section 15300.2. Section 15300.2 specifically states, "[a]ll exemptions for these classes are inapplicable when the cumulative impact of successive projects of the same tXpe in the same place, over time is significant." (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15300.2(b).) Additionally, the exception does not apply where, "there is a reasonable possibility that the activity will have a significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances." (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15300.2(c).) Here, the Agency's cited exception does not apply due to the nature of the proposed development. The project at issue will add ~ total of three automobile dealerships and automobile service centers along Marina Boulevard. This concentration of intense uses from projects "of the same type in the same place" certainly will have a cumulative effect on the environment, and is therefore not exempt from CEQA review. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15300.2(b).) Additionally, the high and unanticipated concentration of automobile sales and service uses in the same area constitute an unusual circumstance under which there is a reasonable possibility the excluded project area would have a significant environmental effect. Therefore, Guidelines section 15300.2(c) also bars the in-fill exception. B. Deferred Mitigation is Not Allowed. Rather than provide an analysis of the potential effects on water quality from the project, so that proper mitigation measures maybe formulated (assuming that the effects could adequately be mitigated), the Agency simplistically provides that the water pollution impact shall be studied in the future. (MND p. 7.) This type of deferred mitigation and study is not allowed under CEQA. The Agency admits that a "site-specific orproject-specific hydrological study has not been performed...." (MND p. 7.) The Agency further admits that pesticides have been found in the groundwater. (MND p. 7.) However, rather than analyze the potential water quality impacts of the project b. efnre approving the project, anti formulating appropriate mitigating measures (if mitigation is found to be possible), the Agency simply provides that future developers shall pay for a hydrological study that "analyzes the potential impacts of the proposed project with regards to water quality, groundwater use and degradation...." (MND p. 7.) This process is backwards, and is a clear violation of the letter and intent of CEQA. Any mitigation measure that consists of a future study conflicts with the requirement that a project plan must incorporate mitigation measures at the time it is released for public review. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21080(c)(2).) A study that is conducted after project approval would not guarantee that the agency and the public had the opportunity to fully consider the environmental effects of the project before project approval - which is the very purpose of MRTL\38756\443627.1