4. CEQA prohibits ““piecemealing,” dividing one project into several and conducting environmental review of some or all of the parts, rather than the whole.
 

CEQA defines a project broadly, as the “whole of an action.”  CEQA therefore prohibits “piecemealing,” dividing one project into several and conducting environmental review of some or all of the parts, rather than the whole.  CDF has treated the proposed Hansen/Whistler 16 ACRE THP/conversion and the existing 3 acre exemption as separate projects.  It has conducted some environmental review for the 16 acre THP, but none for the 3 acre exemption.

This seems to be a case of what CEQA calls “piecemealing.”  Here, there is one vineyard project requiring environmental review.  But it has been divided into two smaller parts, one of which is receiving environmental review, one of which is not. Under CEQA, these two parts comprise one project, all of which should receive environmental review in a single document.

Because a less than 3–acre conversion permit is exempt from CEQA, the original 3 acre vineyard project did not receive any environmental review in connection with that permit.  It therefore has not received any environmental review at all.

This seems to be a classic case of unlawful piecemealing.  Under CEQA, the 3 acre existing vineyard and the vineyard expansion are part and parcel of a single project, and their environmental effects should have been considered together in one document.  But since they have been split into separate parts, one part—the three acre vineyard—has escaped environmental review altogether.

“The foremost principle under CEQA is that the Legislature intended the act ‘to be interpreted in such manner as to afford the fullest possible protection to the environment within the reasonable scope of the statutory language.’ ” (Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of University of California (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376, 390 [quoting Friends of Mammoth v. Board of Supervisors (1972) 8 Cal.3d 247, 259].)

“The highest priority must be given to environmental considerations in interpreting the statute.”  (Environmental Planning and Information Council v. County of El Dorado (1982) 131 Cal.App.3d 350, 355 [quoting Plan for Arcadia, Inc. v. City Council of Arcadia (1974) 42 Cal.App.3d 712, 726].)

“The act thus requires decision makers to assign greater priorities to environmental values than to economic needs.”  (San Francisco Ecology Center v. City and County of San Francisco (1975) 48 Cal.App.3d 584, 591.)

If CDF approves the Hansen/Whistler THP/conversion and Negative Declaration CDF will be violating CEQA by “piecemealing”, dividing one project into several and conducting environmental review of some or all of the parts, rather than the whole.
 

Respectfully Yours,
John Holland