AgdaPkt 2011-08-22 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

8.A. - Page 66 Laurel Way Joint Ventur� Law Way Area Neighbors Association April 15, 2011 Page 5 Staffis thus now proceeding with sclieduling the hearing on that appeal. "�he City has an established p1•actice of acting upon CEQA documents in advance of scheduIing k�earings on prc�ject entitlements themselves. However, in my own experience, I note that it is more comrnon for lead agencies to act upon the CEQA document the same meeting as it acts upon the project itself. �'urthexnnore, it is particularly unusual for a public agency to certify an EIR for a private development project without an act�al project applicatian pending before it_ The lack af a pending project application is new iraformation ��hich may, or may not, affect how the City Co�nci� decides tihe pending appeal, It will be within the Council's discretian whether to uphold certification, or to send the znatter back to City staff and the Planning Conunission for reconsideration af�er az� actual project applicatian is fiZed. Under the present circ�amstances, there are certain practzcaI difficulties with the City Council considering c�rtification of fihe EIR without an actual project application. The City will have ta re- evaluate the adequacy of the EIR once an actual project is proposed. For example, without the participation of the owners of Lot Nos. 2, 12, and 13, #he Project as proposed in the EIR cannot be appraved. And, until the City sees a revised propased application, the City does �ot know how the La�rel Way Joint Venture intends to design the access road, or whetller the lack of participation of the owner� of any of these lots (and Lot Na. 2 in part2cular) will impact the legal feasibility of construction of �he access road. Further, caut have held that, even if an EIR is cer�tified in advar�ce of project approval, members ofthe public may still raise additional issues and arguments re�;arding the EIR's adequacy through the fmal hearing on the pro}ect itself. Indeed, the statute of linutations for challenging the adequacy o�an EIR does �ot even start to run, and it would not be apprapriate to file a CEQA lawsuit, unt'rl after the City actually approyes a prc�ject. Thus, in acting upon the ap�eal of the Planning Cornmission's cert�cation of t�e E�R, the City Council will �ave the following optio�s: 1. The Council may deny the appeal and uphold the Plannu�g Corrunission's certificatian of the EIR. As noted above, this action would be without prejudice ta the City's future consideration of w�iether the EIR is adequate as to wllatever pt�oject application is actually made in the future, Once a specific application is mad�, the City will have to consider a.t that ti�xae whet�et� the EIR adequately describes the project as acivally proposed. Any significant di�'erences could still necessitate future revision and t�ecirculation of the EIR. 2, If the Cauncil finds t�:at the ETR is not adequate in any respect, in response to any arguments made in the appeal, the City cauld uphold the appea➢ and direct staff'to revise the EIR to remedy any such inadequacies.