AgdaPkt 2011-08-22 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

manatt $�A. - Page 115 manatt � phelps � ph+llips Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council August 15, 2Q11 Page � 2. Procedural Back�round The procedural posture of this appeai hearing is quite unusual. As you know, follawing certifica.tion of the EIR last August, the Planning Commission (at a hearing or� December 7, 201 Q) elected to defer cansideration of the app3icant's xequ�st for approval of a planned de�velopme�nt pennit and �estiz�g ter�tative subdivision �nap in order ta develop �urther inforsnation, As explained in th� Staff Report, it was at the December 7, 2010 Plan.ning Commission h.earing that tl�e City iearned for the �irst time that the appliaat'son for a�Lanned develapme��t permit a�id vesting tentative rnap was unauthorized, because not a11 of the owners of property affected by the application had authorized the app�icant to file the application on their behalf. Therea.fter, on March 22, 2011, the applicant abruptly withdrew its applicatran �for entitlem.ents and has not subsequen�ly submitted a new or revised applicatian to the City. Notwit�standing that no applica�ian for enti�lements to develop the property is curren�ly pending, and therefore no project today exisxs, the aQplicant has nevertheless pressed the City to conduct this E�R hearing in the absence af a Project applic�tion, to wkich thc City has appaxently a�reed. We note tl�at the community was apprised of the application's rvithdrawal at a"facilita.ted ciiscussion" meeting with the applicant on March 29, 2011, and further apprised at that meeting that contrary to advice from City's outside land use counsel, the EIR hearing would now be scheduled. As a result of this highly unusual CEQA process, the LWANA and the greater comm�ity find themselves in the awkward pasitson of preparing for a hearing ta fur'ther cansider whether the en�ironrnental review r�vas propEriy conducted for a non-existent project. This is alcin ta reviewing a mo�vie vvi�out first having seen #he film. The community has been compelled to expend sigr�ificant �ime and resources in preparing for an EIR hearing when no certainty exists as to the true scope and eilvironmenta� irnpact of the project as it may, at sorne point in the f�ture, be praposed. a Minutes, Special Meeting of ttte Planning Commission, llecember 7, 241�. 4 The City's own Planning Fennit Application Form expressly requires the owners of the property which is the su�ject of an application (1} sign the application form, or (Z) provide written authari�ation to the applicant. S In the evenE it b�comes �ecessary at some point in the future for LWANA to challenge an unlawfi�l approval of a project on Laurel Way on any grounds, ineiuding on grounds khat the City failed to comply with the tnandas�ry requirexnents of tl�e California �nvironmental Qtiality Aet ("C�QA"; Fub. Resources Code, §§ 2140Q et sec�.) , LWANA wilj seek all fees inew in the Gity's administrative proceedii�gs, including this �ppeal praceeding and fi�e proceedings that le� to this appeal proceeding, (Edna Yalley Wc�tch v. Cuunty of San Luis Obispo {201 l)_ CaI.App.ath ____,)