AgdaPkt 2011-08-22 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

8.A. - Page 6 The second problem which staff believes should be fixed is with Appendix C of the Final EIR. That appendix purports to identify the building square footage of other homes in the vicinity of the proposed development. However, staff has determined that the data in this appendix is incorrect (based upon an incorrect interpretation of data), and that the appendix significantly overstates the sizes of existing homes. Staff thus recommends that the Council send the Final EIR back to staff so that the data in this Appendix can be corrected. Planned Development Permit The Planning Commission reviewed the Planned Development (PD) Permit application for the project on December 7, 2010. After taking testimony and providing comments to staff, the Planning Commission continued the item pending additional research and responses to the Commissioners' questions. The Planning Commission raised issues and asked questions related to: home size analysis, traffic, slope density, drainage and other items. In addition, it was at this hearing that the City discovered that not all of the lot owners had actually authorized LWJV to file the PD Permit application. Following the hearing, City staff worked with the applicant to ascertain which property owners were actually participating in the PD Permit application. Ultimately, on January 21, 2011, LWJV submitted to the City signed authorization forms from the owners of all but three of the lots within the proposed Project area. The three lots whose owners did not join in on the application are the lots identified in Attachment 4 as Lot Nos. 2 (Cicero), 12 (Ramontianu), and 13 (Hanigan). LWJV thus informed City staff that it would withdraw the pending application and then file a revised application, which only included the participating lots. On March 22, 2011, LWJV withdrew the PD (and the associated Tentative Map) application, asked the City to schedule the present hearing on the EIR certification, and indicated that it will file the revised application at a future date after the EIR appeal is heard by the City Council. It is not common for a public agency to certify an EIR for a private development project in the absence of an actual pending project application. It is clear that the previously- filed development application will have to be materially changed, for example, to omit the three lots whose owners are not currently participating. Until the City has the actual application, the form of development remains conceptual. Given this fact, even if the EIR is certified, it is possible that additional environmental review will have to be conducted once specifics of the project are known. In addition, the adequacy of the EIR will remain subject to legal challenge until after an actual project is approved. More specifically, CEQA does not provide for a lawsuit to be filed challenging the adequacy of an EIR until after a project is approved. These issues are further discussed in the April 15, 2011 letter from the City's legal counsel, to the interested parties, a copy of which is attached to this staff report. (Attachment 5) That being said, City staff does not believe that this issue, by itself, would necessitate delay in the certification of the Final EIR. The EIR is designed to address a"worst case" scenario, which anticipates all potential environmental impacts that could result from