AgdaPkt 2011-08-22 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

8.A. - Page 116 I � IQI IA4� manatt � phelps � phillips Honarable Mayor and Menr�bers of the City Cnuncil Augxst 1 S, 2011 Page 5 Because o�the inherent confusion that results when project-level environrnenta� revier�v is canducted in the absence of a groject, the Legislature has declared that it is the policy of the state of Calsfarnia that: Local agencies integrate tk►e requirements of [CEQA] with planning and environrtaental review procedures athe��vvzse reyexired by law or by local practice so that all those procedures, to the maximum feasi6le extent, rur� c�racurrentdy, rather than consecutively. (Pub. Resources Code, §§ 21003(a), emph. added; see a�sa CEQA Guidelines, § 1SD04(c) �"The environrnental docurnent preparation and re�criew shauld be cc�ordinated in a timely fashion with the exisfiing planning, review, and }�roject approval pracesses being used by �;ach public agency. These p��ocedures, to the maximum extent feasible, are to ran concurrently, not consecuti�e�y."],) While LWANA would prefer the Planning Commission an�d Gity Council tn praperly consider the project and the EIR together in accardance with the express direction of th�e Legislature, because the City has scheduled thc appeai of the EIR certification for hearing, in order to futly preserve its rights, LWANA must subinit comments at this interim stage, notwitlistanding that when a new ar revised project application is finally received by the City, additional CEQA review of that project will be required and LWANA wil� a�ain be required to submit comrnents in order to properIy preser�ve its legaI rights ta ensure the protection of the surrounding neighbarhaQds and greater Emerald Lake Hills community. 3. The Enviranmental Impact Reuort Certified Bv The P�anz�an� Commission In 2010 Faiis To Complv With CEQA Based on our ir�dependent legal review and analysis, including review by subject matter experts, we agree with the conclusion in the Staff Report that the EIR is dafteient in twa important respects: (a} the mitigation measures for the numerous geoiagy�related ixnpacts are inadequate, and (b) important com�arable housing size data (on which parts af the EIR are based) are incarrect and reguire revision. While the two deficiencies identified by staff are suf'ficient to mandate that the Council uphold LWANA's appeal, additional deficiencies exist which render t�e EIR inadequate. As detailed belaw, the EIR falls short of CEQA's mandatory statutory requirements in several key subject matter areas - aesthetics, biology, l�ydrolagy, geology, air qua.lity, traffc and noise. The Planning Comix�ission's canclusion that the proposed project would result in "less thar� significar�t environinental impacts" is not supported by the rey�irecl suhstantial e�idence in the record. Likewise, the mitigation measures on which the Comrnission's finding of no significant