AgdaPkt 2011-08-22 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

8.A. - Page 120 ! 1 !AI IQL� manatt � phalps J phillips Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council August 15, 2011 Page 9 decisiomnalcers with information wl�ich enables them to nnaice a decisio�l vvhrch intellig�ntly takes accnunt oF environrnei�tal cansequences.,." (San Joaquira Raptar Rescue Ctr. v, County of' Merced (2007) 149 Ca1.App,4th b45, quoting CEQA Guidelines. § 15151.) The EIR fails to . comply �uvith these mandatory require�nents. The praject°s significant impacts are gravely underestimated when compared to the baseline thresholds. Further�nore, there are a{lditional uiliden#ified significarit advcrse impacts and curr�ulative impacts overlooked by the EIR. Notwithstandin.g the fact that signif cant adverse impacts are underestimated or overlooked, the "mitigatian measures" proposed to reduce the actually-identified impacts woefully inadequate, unrealistic and irnpractical. Exanaples of the ETR's fa�al deficiencies include the follawing: o According to Geology aa�d Hydrology reports provided by t�ie City, several critical measures necessary to evaluate the potentiatly signif�cant environmental impacts of the praject have not yet been undertaken. These include, but are not Iimited to, grading and improvement plans, a detailed Erosion Cont�al P�an, a S#orna Water Pollution Prevention Plan, a Spill Contingency and Countermeasures Plan, an eva3uation of ax7 existing landslide on Lots 3 and 4, and other c�itical tasks suah as temporary excavation support plans, detailed fonndation exploratians and geotechnica] investigations on each loL. (See FE1R, Appenciix A: MitigaYion Manitoring and Reporting program; Resalution, Exhibit A, pp. 11- 24) a Publicly available reports af nearby rnercury mining activity have not heex� anal.yzed, nor have soil toxicity tests #'ar mercury a�ad attendant pollutants been per#'ormed. This seems to have besn a particularly cancerning oversight givcn that at least one mercury nnine was aperat�onal in the area, a decomposing oil drum was locatec� on site, and there is substantial evidence of se�ps in the same vicini#.y. o Many coimn�nts an the DEIR noted serious concern. tl�at proposed grading and excavation would destabiiize the hiliside and adversely impact adjacent residences and the existing creek. There is i10 substantial evidence an the recard $ The list of noted deficiencies is not exhaustive, and is based on a review of tlZe pre�iously submitted {now withdrawn} project praposal. The evidence presented i�� basad on input from bo� experts, and non-experts, including the personal observatioz►s and past experience of area residents. The members of I,WANA live and own property in the �icinity of t]ie project sste, and ha�e direct knowledge of the environmental constraints of the site.