AgdaPkt 2013-09-23 Closed and Regular

Browse Search

8.A. - Page 308 B.A. - Page 66 Laurd Way Joist Venture Laurel Way Area Neighbors Association April 15, 2011 Page 5 Staff is thus now proceeding with scheduling the hearing on that appeal. The City has an established practice of acting upon CEQA documents in advance of whedtft head on 1wJect nd "k merits themselves. However, in my own experience; I note that it is more common for lead agenaies to wet upon the CEQA document the same meeting as it acts upon the project itself Furthermore, it is particularly unusual for.& public agency to certify an EIR for a private development project without an actual project application penft before it. The lack of a paxiing project application is new information which may, or may not, affect how the City Council decides the pending appeal, it will be within the Council's discretion whether to uphold cerd&ation, or to send the matter back to City staff and the Planning Commission for reconsideration ager an actual project application is filed. Under the prewent circumstances, there arc certain practical difficulties with the City Council considering certification of the Elft without an actual project application. The City will ,have to re- evaluate the adequacy of the EIR once an actual project is proposed. For example, without the participation of the owners of Let Nos. 2, 12, and 13, the Project as proposed in the FIR cannot be approved. And, until the City sees a revised proposed application, the City does not know how the Laurel Way Joint Venture intends to design the access road, or whedw the lack ofparti*ation of the owners of any of these lots (and Got No. 2 in particular) win impact the legal feasibility of construction of the access road. Further, courts have held that, even if an EIR is certified in advance ofproject approval, members of the public may still raise additional issues and arguments regarding the EIR's adequacy through the final nearing on the project itself Indeed, the statute of limitations for challenging the adequacy of an EIR does not even out to run, and it would not be appropriate to file a CEQA lawsuit, until after the City actually appmres a project. Thus, in acting upon the appeal of the Planum Commission's certification of the EIR, the City Council will have the fallowing options: 1. The Council may deny the appeal and uphold the Plagtning Commission's certification of the EIR. As noted above, this action would be without prejudice to the City's future consideration of whether the EIR is adequate as to whatever project application is actually made in the future. Oum a specific application is made, the City will have to comfier at that tum whether the EIR adequately describes tine project as actually proposed. Any s4pfiicant des could still necessitate future revision and recirculation ofthe EIR. 2. If the Council fords that the EIR is not adequate in any respect, in response to any arguments made m the appeal, the City could uphold the appeal and direct staff to revise the EIR to remedy any such inadequacies.