Agenda Packet_2026-02-03 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

SECTION 10 ---- IMPROPER USE OF CEQA EXEMPTION AS A SUBSTITUTE FOR ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The CEQA Class 14 exemption was treated as a conclusive clearance rather than a threshold screening tool, resulting in the bypass of required environmental analysis despite clear conditions warranting further review. 10.1 Exemption Applied as a Determination of No Impact Rather Than a Threshold of Inquiry The Class 14 categorical exemption was used as the basis for project approval rather than as an initial screening mechanism to determine whether environmental review was required. CEQA exemptions are intended to serve as a preliminary threshold of inquiry—not a substitute for analysis—particularly where potential impacts may exist. The City's reliance on the exemption as a definitive conclusion of"no impact" circumvented the foundational purpose of the CEQA process. 10.2 Evidence of Potential Environmental and Operational Impacts Was Present but Not Evaluated Multiple project elements presented clear indicators of potential environmental and operational impacts—including increased noise, circulation and parking changes, lighting spillover, programmatic expansion, proximity to an R-1 residence, the presence of senior and ADA-protected occupants, and cumulative institutional conditions along the McFadden corridor. Despite these red-flag factors, no environmental screening analysis, checklist, or disclosure was conducted or made available to evaluate whether the exemption was appropriate. These impacts required consideration before concluding that CEQA did not apply. 10.3 Staff Framed the Exemption as,Pre-Decided, Undermining.the Purpose of - CEQA Review The Public Hearing Notice stated that the CEQA Class 14 Categorical Exemption "will be filed" for the project. This language reasonably conveyed to the public that the exemption---and therefore the environmental determination--had been decided in advance of public review or input. The wording diminished the credibility of the CEQA process and contributed to the perception that the exemption was a procedural formality, rather than a decision subject to evaluation or public comment. 10.4._Reliance on Exemption Eliminated Public Transparency and Disclosure Obliciations By treating the exemption as a substitute for environmental review, the City avoided the transparency and disclosure obligations that accompany CEQA compliance. No environmental screening documents, impact analysis, or mitigation considerations were provided for public review. As a result, affected residents were denied meaningful access to information regarding project impacts, and the public record lacks the analysis needed to understand or assess environmental consequences. 25 City Council 18 —41 2/3/2026