CC Min 1989-02-27 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Item No. 6 (continued) 10. On November 15, .,198,8 ,. a motion to certify the FEIR as completed failed to obtain 'a majority vote at the Planning Commission. Thereafter, the Commission passed and adopted a motion to continue consideration of the question of certification to a subsequent meeting. 11. Appellants contend that the initial failure to certify the FEIR was inconsistent with the Commission's later certification (Ltr. of App., para. 2, p. 1). Such contention is without merit because the Commission merely deferred action to permit further review of the FEIR (Staff Report, Planning Commission, Agenda Item 3, meeting of 12/6/88). Further, a motion to certify the FEIR as completed in compliance with CEQA was duly passed and carried at the Planning Commission meeting of December 6, 1988, superseding all prior motions. 12. Appellants contend that they were denied their right to speak on the question of certification at the December 6, 1988 Planning Commission meeting (Ltr. of App., para. 3, p. 2). Such contention is without merit because the public hearing on the certification of the FEIR had been closed. Moreover, Appellants impliedly admit that their objection on the question of speaking further on the FEIR was heard (id.). 13. Appellants contend that certain traffic tables in the FEIR contain errors because they are not based upon the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Manual (Ltr. of App., para. 4, p. 2). Said contention was responded to, and the basis for traffic generation information in the FEIR explained further, in letter from Barton- Aschman Associates, Inc. to the Planning Director dated 1/17/89, which letter concludes that the trip z generation figures in the FEIR are within the range of "acceptable traffic engineering practice ". 14. The State CEQA Guidelines acknowledge that disagreement among experts does not make an EIR inadequate (State CEQA Guidelines S 15151). To the extent, if at all, Appellants' Traffic Generation figures are at odds with those of the consultant who prepared the FEIR, such difference or disagreement is within that allowed pursuant to said Section 15151. 15. Appellants contend that the FEIR is deficient in addressing a number of other issues purportedly calling for mitigation, but Appellants state no specifics with respect to such contention (Ltr. of App., para. 5, p.2). Accordingly, said contention is without merit. 16. Appellants contend that certain newspaper articles which were published subsequent to closure of the hearing on the FEIR apparently reflected adversely on Appellants' position regarding the Project. Said contention is irrelevant. 17. Appellants quote at some length portions of the Court of Appeal decision in Laurel Heights Improvement Association v. University of California (Ltr. of App., para. 7, pp. 3 -4). That decision has been superseded by the decision of the State Supreme Court in Laurel I1eights Improvement Association of San Francisco, -• Inc v. Regents of the University of California, (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376; Cal.Rptr. ). Further, Appellants fail to describe with any particularity the relationship between said decision and specific provisions or issues relating to the FEIR. MINUTE BOOK NO. 48 Reg.Mtg. Page No. 309 2/27/89 n,-- in