CORRESPONDENCE - 50A - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

November 13, 2014 Page 3 shelter project contained in the PSA or in any of the approvals at the July 15 meeting or proposed for the November 18 meeting. Also, the action to acquire this property for use as a homeless shelter is, consistent with common sense application, not exempt from CEQA. There is no doubt that this project may cause a significant impact on the environment. The CEQA categorical exemption cited by Staff, by its own terms, applies only "where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment ...." (See CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3)) This proposed action, the acquisition of property for a 200+ bed homeless shelter, does not pass muster under that standard. The California Supreme Court spoke to this situation when, in Save Tara v, City of West Hollywood (2008) 45 Cal.4" 116,138, it said: [W]e apply the general principle that before conducting CEQA review, agencies must not take any action' that significantly furthers a project 'in a manner that forecloses alternatives or mitigation measures that would ordinarily be part of CEQA review of that public project. "' (cite omitted). The Court further elaborated that future reviewing courts would be considering "whether, as a practical matter, the agency has committed itself to the project as a whole or to any particular features, so as to effectively preclude any alternatives or mitigation measures that CEQA would otherwise require to be considered, including the alternative of not going forward with the project." Id at 139. In Save Tara, the contract at issue, terminable at the will of the city manager, provided for city CEQA compliance before the property could be transferred to the developer. The fact that the contract did not contain an irrevocable prerequisite that CEQA review first be conducted before the transaction could be completed led to the Court's ruling. The Court held that such a contract constituted a project approval that had avoided environmental review under CEQA, hi the current instance, the County's agreement with the owner for the purchase of 1217 Nomuandy Place for the implementation of a homeless shelter does not even feign to first be conditioned upon required. CEQA review. The County's PSA, that contracts for the purchase of current industrial property for a "multi - service center and shelter ", if consummated, would be an irrevocable, $3.6 Million commitment to the homeless shelter project without first requiring environmental analysis consistent with CEQA. hideed a consummated transaction for the purchase of 1217 Normandy Place would effectively preclude the consideration of alteratives acid mitigation measures, including consideration of the no project alternative. The commitment of $3.6 Million of public funds is perhaps the most certain of actions demonstrating the irrevocable Intent to locate a homeless shelter at 1217 Normandy Place that could occur. Nevertheless, additional actions affecting the proposed transaction have recently occurred. As you likely know, the City of Santa Ana considered the propriety of the County's 4091186,1 -N1500A