Laserfiche WebLink
February 4, 2025 <br />Page 9 <br /> <br />7357-016j <br /> <br />1. The Revised EIR Must Include a Revised Project Description <br />Which Incorporates Both Projects <br /> <br /> CEQA prohibits piecemeal review of the significant environmental impacts of <br />a project.36 A project under CEQA refers to the “whole of an action which has the <br />potential for resulting in either a direct physical change in the environment, or <br />reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment.”37 CEQA’s <br />prohibition on piecemealing ensures that environmental considerations are not <br />diluted by dividing a large project into smaller ones, each with a minimal potential <br />impact, which cumulatively may have disastrous consequences.38 Public agencies <br />must interpret the project broadly to encompass the whole of the action and its <br />environmental impacts.39 <br /> <br /> The Arroyo Lago Project and East Lakes Project share a common property <br />owner and would occupy the same parcel, APN 946-4634-2. Although the projects <br />are being processed under separate applications, they represent a single combined <br />use of the Project sites owned by a common entity. The two projects are to be <br />developed simultaneously, on common property under common ownership. The <br />Projects constitute a single development proposal which will result in overlapping <br />and potentially significant individual and cumulative environmental impacts. <br />These impacts must be analyzed in a single EIR to fully address the environmental <br />consequences of the projects and avoid artificially reducing their impacts. <br /> <br />The Applicant’s two projects proposed on APN 946-4634-2 are similar to the <br />piecemealed developments overturned by the court in Arviv Enterprises, Inc. v. <br />South Valley Area Planning Commission.40 There, the developer, Arviv, received <br />permits to develop three houses, then additional two houses, a categorical <br />exemption to develop two additional houses across the street, and a mitigated <br />negative declaration to build 14 additional houses on an adjacent street.41 The City <br />of Los Angeles came to realize the cumulative effects from what was in reality a <br />development project for 21 hillside houses that required environmental review of <br /> <br />36 Laurel Heights Improvement Assn., 47 Cal. 3d at 396; See Bozung v. Local Agency Formation Com. <br />(1975) 13 Cal.3d 263, 283-284; See also Pub. Res. Code § 21002.1(d). <br />37 14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15378(a). <br />38 Id.; See also City of Santee v. County of San Diego (1989) 214 Cal.App.3d 1438, 1452; Citizens <br />Assn. for Sensible Development of Bishop Area v. County of Inyo (1985) 172 Cal.App.3d 151, 165. <br />39 14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15378. <br />40 (2002) 101 CA4th 1333, 1336. <br />41 Arviv Enters., Inc. v. South Area Planning Comm’n (2002) 101 CA4th 1333, 1336.