RDA Reso 2001-010 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

.• Ms. Debbie Pollart And Redevelopment Agency Members September 17, 2001 Page 4 CEQA. (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.) What the Agency is attempting to do in the current situation was specifically disallowed in Sandstrom v. County of Mendocino (1988) 202 Ca1.App.3d 296.) In Sandstrom the court rej ected a condition to a negative declaration which required the project applicant to submit a hydrological study in the future to county staff so as to demonstrate that there was no significant impacts. (Sunstrom, 202 Cal.App.3d at 306-307.) The court emphasized that, "[b]y deferring environmental assessment to a future date, the conditions run counter to that policy of CEQA which require environmental review at the earliest feasible stage in the planning process." ( unstrom, at 3071.) The wart continued: "A study conducted after approval of a project will inevitably have a diminished influence on decisionmaking. Even if the study is subject to administrative approval, it is analogous to the sort of post hoc rationalization of agency actions that has been repeatedly condemned in decisions construing CEQA." (un trom, at 307.) The MND in the current case requires the studies to be approved and reviewed by the City Engineer. It is clear from the decision in Sandstrom that the Agency may not simply provide for a future hydrological study with the notion that this provision somehow complies with CEQA. By failing to adequately consider the potential environmental effects and deferring any such evaluation to a future date, the Agency is failing to proceed in the manner required by law, and is clearly abusing its discretion. C. Subsequent Environmental Review Must Be Performed. Although it is true that all activities which constitute a redevelopment plan are considered a single project under CEQA, and therefore covered under one CEQA review process, further environmental review shall be conducted if a supplemental or subsequent environmental review is required. (Pub. Resources Code, § § 21090, 21166.) If new information becomes available which was not considered at the time of initial environmental review, the agency is required to consider tl~i ~ new information. The agency must either prepare a subsequent EIR or, at a minimum, decide whether to prepare a subsequent negative declaration, addendum, or require no further documentation. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15162(b).) A subsequent EIR is required if new information, not initially considered, shows that significant effects that were previously examined will be more severe than previously thought. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21166; Cal. Code Regs., tit 14. § 15162(a)(3)(B).) ' In fact, the current situation is arguably a more egregious flouting of CEQA's requirements, since the agency in Sunstrom provided that any mitigation measures recommended by the future study would be incorporated as requirements of the development, whereas the Agency in the current situation makes no such requirements of what type of mitigation measures, if any, should result if the future studies find significant environmental impacts. (Sunstrom, at 306.) MRTL\38756\443627.1