CORRESPONDENCE_2017-2018 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

San Joaquin County Board of Supervisors April 10,2017 Page 8 The decision in Quail Botanical Gardens Foundation,Inc. v. City of Encinitas, supra,29 Cal.App.4`h at p. 1604,fn.5,particularly supports this point. In Quail, the court stated,"the City cannot rely on post-approval mitigation measures adopted during the subsequent design review process. Such measures will not validate a negative declaration." Additionally,the court cited that"[t]here cannot be meaningful scrutiny of a mitigated negative declaration when the mitigation measures are not set forth at the time of project approval." [Citations omitted.] Further,the court notes"the CEQA I Guidelines require project plans to be revised to include mitigation measures before the proposed negative declaration is released for public review." (CEQA Guidelines,§ 15070(b)(1))[II Thus,the court concluded that"any necessary mitigation measures must be specifically set forth at the time of publication of a mitigated negative declaration in advance of the City's adoption of it." [Citations omitted.] As discussed above,the County's Staff Report concludes that the increase in truck traffic will be less than significant. The determination of less than significant is based upon the Planning Commission's additional conditional of approval that requires project applicant to recess the gate at the proposed ingress driveway so as to allow stacking for a minimum of three(3)trucks on site. (Staff Report at p.2.) The addition of this mitigation measure by the Planning Commission violates CEQA. i VI. CONCLUSION I The County may not rely upon an IS/MND for approval of the Project because the Initial Study failed to disclose,analyze and mitigate all the impacts of the Project as required by CEQA. Furthermore,the Initial Study fails to provide an accurate Project Description and relies upon deferred mitigation measures. Moreover,substantial evidence submitted to the County through written comment letters and oral testimony j before the Planning Commission and this Board supports a fair argument that the proposed Project may have potentially significant environmental impacts. Thus,it would be a clear legal error and a prejudicial abuse of discretion for the Board to approve the MND and Project. Before any further consideration of the Project,CEQA mandates that the County prepare an EIR that includes much more analysis and enforceable mitigation measures. We look forward to the Board of Supervisors fulfilling its legal duties to comply with CEQA and to fulfill its responsibilities to the people of the County both to protect I After the Quail Botanical Gardens Foundation Court of Appeal's decision,the Resource Agency amended the CEQA Guidelines section 15070(b)(1),to refer to "[r]evisions in the project plans or proposals made by,or agreed to by the applicant before a proposed mitigated negative declaration and initial study are released for public review..." This amendment does not affect the Court of Appeal's analysis in Quail Botanical Gardens.