Opinion ID: 426278
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Scope of the UDAG Project

Text: 22 Appellants strenuously contend that the City improperly limited its environmental and historic review to Phase II, since preliminary planning and designing had been undertaken for Phases III and V. Indeed, most of the plaintiffs-appellants' criticisms have been directed at an uncertain Phase III which, as originally planned, would consist of a 750-foot office tower. Throughout the proceedings, plaintiffs have attempted to redefine the UDAG project to include Phase III so that it, too, would be the subject of an environmental assessment. Equating the plans laid for Phase III, when Canal Place was originally conceived, with the present commitment to build, the plaintiffs have implied that Phase III is a present reality that was omitted from the UDAG application for the sole purpose of avoiding environmental scrutiny. However, nothing in the record supports this view. As the district court found, all indications are that plans for Phase III and other future phases have been shelved for economic and other reasons. 23 HUD regulations established some pertinent guidelines for the proper scope of environmental review under NEPA. An activity encompasses [t]hose actions funded or authorized to be funded with Title I assistance and those related actions which are not so funded or not authorized ... but which are put forth by the applicant as part of its strategy for the treatment of a project area. 24 C.F.R. Sec. 58.2(a)(1). Regardless of funding sources, integrally related activities designed to accomplish, in whole or in part, a specific goal are to be grouped together for consideration as a single project. Moreover, closely related and proposed or reasonably foreseeable actions that are related by timing or geography also must be considered together. 24 Naturally, the UDAG-funded public improvements are part of the activity: relocation of power lines; the NOPSI substation screening and landscaping of other public areas; street lighting and construction of an internal circular roadway; and construction of sidewalks and an elevated pedestrian walkway to the Mississippi River Ferry. In spite of the private funding for the hotel and shopping mall of Phase II, this construction was grouped together with the UDAG-funded improvements for consideration as a single project because it was integrally related and part of the developer's strategy for the treatment of the project area. 24 C.F.R. Sec. 58.2(a)(1). 25 Plaintiffs contend that Phases III and V should also be included in the project definition because they were included in the developer's mid-70's master plan for the site, would share uncertain Phase II amenities, if constructed, and would benefit from some of the improvements financed by the UDAG. However, none of these factors remove Phases III and V from the planning stages where they have remained without any progress that would invite or even allow environmental and historic review. 26 Although an earlier UDAG application included Phases II and III in its project description, that UDAG application was withdrawn in 1979 since there was no firm financial commitment for Phase III. That application was withdrawn in accordance with 24 C.F.R. Sec. 570.458(c)(5), which declares that [n]o application will be considered feasible and effective unless there is evidence of at least a firm private commitment [of financial resources] and if necessary, a firm public commitment. See also 24 C.F.R. Secs. 570.451(i) and (j). That experience undoubtedly affected the 1981 draft of the UDAG application, which would have failed again to satisfy the financial commitment requirement if the financially unsound Phases III and V had been included. Indeed, there were not even detailed drawings on which cost estimates could be based, much less a firm financial commitment. Contrary to plaintiffs' speculation that future phases have become more probable with the passage of time, the developer testified without contradiction that the last designs for Phase III had been prepared before the first UDAG application was withdrawn and that these designs would not support a financial commitment. Witness Canizaro testified: 27 Q. Hasn't Phase III been successfully designed to attempt to get financial backing for it? 28 A. No, Sir. 29 Q. But you had given Aetna sufficiently detailed presentation with respect to the size of the building and the space available in the building and the location of the building so that Aetna could express an interest? 30 A. That is not correct. Aetna expressed an interest because they had done the first building. 31