PC Min 09/25/1984PLANNING COMMISSION
CITY OF CAMPBELL, CALIFORNIA
7:30 P. M. MINUTES SEPTEMBER 25, 1984
The Planning~Commission of the City of Campbell convened this day in regular
session at the regular meeting place, the Council Chambers of the City Hall,
70 N. First St., Campbell, California.
ROLL CALL
Present Commissioners: Kasolas, Perrine, Christ, Howard,
Fairbanks, Dickson; Planning Director Arthur A.
Kee, Principal Planner Philip J. Stafford, Engineer-
ing Manager Bill Helms, City Attorney J. Robert
Dempster, Recording Secretary Linda Dennis.
Absent Commissioner Toshach.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
September 11, 1984 M/S: Howard, Fairbanks - That the minutes of the
Planning Commission meeting of September 11~ T984
be approved as submitted. Motion carried unani-
mously (6-0-1).
COMMUNICATIONS
Mr. Kee noted that communications received pertained to specific items on the
agenda and would be discussed at that time.
Chairman Dickson noted that the newly appointed commissioner, Mr. John Toshach,
had to be out of town on business and Hill be at the next meeting.
***
ARCHITECTURAL APPROVALS
MM 84~i22 Continued application of Mr. James Miller, on behalf
Spoons Restaurant of Spoons Restaurants, Inc., for approval of a minor
modification to allow the construction of an addition
of approximately 350 sq.ft. to an existing restaurant
located on property known as 1555 S. Bascom Avenue in
a C-2-S (General Commercial) Zoning District.
Mr. Kee reported that the applicant has requested a continuance to the first
meeting in October.
t'I/S: Fairbanks, Howard - That MM 84-22 be continued, at the applicant's re-
request, to the Planning Commission meeting of
October 9, 1984. Motion carried unanimously
(6-0-1).
***
-2-
S 84-19 Application of Mr. Richard Sayer, on behalf of Harman
Sayer, R. Management Corp., for approval of plans and elevations
to allow an addition to the existing Kentucky Fried
Chicken restaurant on property known as 1805 S.
Winchester Blvd. in a C-2-S (General Commercial)
Zoning District.
Commissioner Howard reported that this item was considered by the Site and
Architectural Review Committee. After further consideration, the Architectural
Advisor feels there is no problem with the concrete pad, as previously stated.
Additionally there is some redlining on the plans regarding signing, and a
condition that the landscaping come back to the Site Committee. The Committee
is recommending approval with these notations.
M/S: Kasolas, Howard - That the Planning Commission approve S 84-19, subject
to redlining of plans and conditions of approval as
indicated in the Staff Comment Sheet. Motion carried
unanimously (6-0-1).
PUBLIC HEARINGS
UP 84-12 Public hearing to consider the application of Lynn
Grandi, L. Gran di and h1att Hill fora use permit and approval
Hill, M. of plans and elevations to allow the conversion of
a garage to living space on property known as 46
Harc(y Avenue in an R-1 (Single Family Residential)
Zoning District.
Commissioner Howard reported that this application was considered by the Site
and Architectural Review Committee. The property was developed in the existing
manner prior to the applicant's purchasing it, and the applicants are trying to
bring things into code and obtain a permit. The Committee is recommending
approval.
Chairman Dickson asked how this type of situation happens, and if the new owners
have any recourse.
Mr. Kee noted that these types of conversions happen frequently, and are not
discovered until the property is sold and the financial institutions begin
checking for permits. This is a situation that is not easily monitored by
Staff. Mr. Kee added~lthat it may be possible for the current owners to seek
compensation from the previous owners.
Commissioner Kasolas asked if approval of this application would mean that
the conversion would have to meet current building codes.
P1r. Kee indicated that this would be the case.
Commissioner Fairbanks asked if there was a possibility that this conversion
was another living unit, rather than additional space for the single family
unit.
Mr. Kee stated that if this is the case, Staff will be alerted by the Building
Department when .they inspect the site under the permit procedure.
Chairman Dickson opened the public hearing and invited anyone in the audience
to speak for or against this item.
- 3-
Mr. Matt Hill, applicant, noted that because they assumed the loan for this
house, there were no checks for permits on the conversion. He added that
the previous owners installed a ceiling, put carpeting down, and boarded up
the garage door. This was the extent of the conversion.
M/S: Howard, Fairbanks - That the public hearing on UP 84-12 be closed.
Motion carried unanimously (6-0-1).
P4/S: Howard, Fairbanks - That the Planning Commission adopt RESOLUTION N0.
2290 approving UP 84-12, subject to the condition
that the applicant secure any necessary permits
from the Building Department. Motion carried
with the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners: Kasolas, Perrine, Christ, Howard, Fairbanks,
Dickson
NOES: Commissioners: None
ABSENT: Commissioners: Toshach
Commissioner Kasolas commented that with the Commission being concerned about
density (which is often based on square footage), it should also consider how
much living space is available for the number of people living in the area--
currently, and in the future. With additional living space, room is provided
for additional people--density, which could be changing the direction of the
General Plan.
***
UP 84-13 Public hearing to consider the application of Mr.
Yampolski, V. Vadim Yampolski for a use permit to allow on-sale
beer and wine in an existing delicatessen on pro-
perty known as 1783 S. 4Jinchester Blvd. in a
C-2-S (General Commercial) Zoning District.
Mr. Kee reported that the applicant has requested that this application be
withdrawn, and that his fee be refunded. In that this application has already
been noticed for public hearing, Staff would recommend a refund of $250.
Chairman Dickson opened the public hearing and invited anyone in the audience
to~speak for or against this item.
M/S: Howard, Fairbanks - That the public hearing for UP 84-13 be closed.
Motion carried unanimously (6-0-1).
P•1/S: Howard, Fairbanks - That the Planning Commission adopt RESOLUTION N0.
2291 denying without prejudice UP 84-13; and,
that the Commission recommend that the City Council
refund $250 of the application fee. Motion carried
by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners: Kasolas, Perrine, Christ, Howard, Fairbanks,
Dickson
NOES: Commissioners: None
ABSENT: Commissioners: Toshach
***
-4-
MISCELLANEOUS
SA 84-47 Application of Quadrex Corporation for signing on
Quadrex Corp. property known as 1680 Dell Avenue in a CM:B
(Controlled Manufacturing) Zoning District.
Commissioner Howard reported that this item was .considered by the Site and
Architectural Review Committee. The Committee is recommending approval.
M/S: Howard, Perrine - That SA 84-27 be approved, subject to conditions as
indicated in the Staff Comment Sheet. Motion carried
unanimously (6-0-1).
***
SA 84-02 Request of Per. Douglas Kersey for an extension of
Kersey, D. the removal date for an off-premise free-standing
sign on property known as 1405 Camden Avenue in a
C-1-S (Pleighborhood Commercial) Zoning District.
Mr. Stafford reported that Staff is recommending that this request be granted
to December 1984.
M/S: Kasolas, Fairbanks - That this extension be granted to December 24, 1984.
Motion carried with a vote of 4-2-1, with Commissioners
Christ and Dickson voting "no".
Commissioner Perrine noted that he voted for this extension, although he voted ~ ~'
against the original proposal, in that this sign was not bad compared to the
other temporary signs in the area.
Chairman Dickson noted that he voted against this motion, in that he did not
favor extension requests.
***
Staff Report Staff Report regarding the City's policy and pro-
cedures for implementing the California Environ-
mental Quality Act (CEQA).
Mr. Stafford reviewed the City's current and proposed policies regarding
CEQA, noting that in the future Staff will be preparing negative declarations
and bringing them to the Commission for consideration. If further information
is desired by the Commission, the procedure will be extended until such infor-
mation is gathered. Mr. Stafford continued that Staff will be contacting local
consultants for their statement of qualifications and samples of work. This
information will be presented to the Commission for consideration for a revised
approved consultant list.
Commissioner Kasolas felt that to require a consultant to have a Registered
Traffic Engineer on staff Could restrict the number of available consultants
to a few large firms. He continued that it would seem appropriate that a
firm could subcontract traffic studies to a Registered Traffic Engineer.
-5-
Mr. Stafford indicated that a situation arose recently wherein the consult-
ing firm subcontracted the traffic studies, and communication problems
resulted for the Public Works Staff when they had to go through the consult-
ant--rather than straight to the Traffic Engineer. Mr. Stafford added that
the requirement of a Registered Traffic Engineer on staff is only a suggestion.
Commissioner Kasolas noted that this situation would seem to be a policy
matter; and, that the City has to seek the best information and not limit
itself to local firms.
Commissioner Howard noted his agreement with Commissioner Kasolas, indicating
that most firms subcontract specified areas of expertise. He suggested a
policy that~~~ould provide for Staff to be in direct contact with any sub-
contractors.
Commissioner Fairbanks stated that she felt Staff has a good point with this
issue, and that suggestions made ib this report will facilitate the Commission's
jab; however, she is willing to find a balance.
Commissioner Christ noted that he has similar concerns, in that traffic is a
significant portion of most EIR's.
Commissioner Fairbanks asked if it will be possible to get samples of reports
from consultants being proposed for addition to the City's list.
Mr. Kee responded that Staff will be requesting qualification statements and
work samples from the various firms.
Discussion ensued regarding mitigation measures, and ways to encourage con-
sultants to present "real and valued" mitigation measures, rather than mea-
sures which will not come about (ie. staggered work hours, encourage use of
public transit, etc.).
Chairman Dickson noted that there are steps available when the Commission
feels that the information submitted is not adequate. One step would be
to request better information. Another would be to remove the consultant
from the approved list.
M/S: Howard, Fairbanks - That the Planning Commission recommend that the
City Council adopt the attached resolution estab-
lishing objectives, criteria, and procedures for
the environmental evaluation of projects and the
preparation of negative declarations and Environ-
mental Impact Reports pursuant to the CEQA. Motion
carried unanimously (6-0-1).
M/S: Howard, Fairbanks - That the Planning Commission recommend to the City
Council that the list of consultants approved to
prepare EIR's for the City be reviewed and up-dated.
Motion carried unanimously (6-0-1).
***
-6-
OTHER ITEMS BROUGHT UP BY COMMISSION
Chairman Dickson noted that the City Council would like to have a Joint Study
Session to discuss the high rise moratorium, and setbacks in residential dis-
tricts, on October 24 or 30. It was the consensus of the Commission that
October 30, 1984 would work best.
Chairman Dickson indicated that the Commission should start to consider a
date for the annual Planning Commission meeting.
ADJOURNMENT
M/S: Kasolas, Fairbanks - That the Planning Commission meeting be adjourned.
The meeting adjourned at 8:35 p.m.
APPROVED: J. Du4Jayne Dickson
Chairman
ATTEST: Arthur A. Kee
Secretary
RECORDED: Linda A. Dennis
Recording Secretary
COND 1 T IONS OF APPROVAL ; S 84'19
APPL 1 CAT I ON OF : Sayer, R.
S i TE ADDRESS : 1805 S. Winchester 61 vd. P c kTC : 9-25-84
Revised elevations and/or site plan to be approved by the Pla~nnin~
Director upon recommendation of the Architectural Advisor, within
30 days of the Planning Commission approval.
Revised elevations and/or site plan to be approved by the Site &
Architectural Review Committee and/or the .Planning Commission w th-
n 30 days of Planning Commission approval.
1 Property to be fenced and landscaped as indicated and/or added in
red on plans. Landscaping and fencing shall be maintained in
accordance with the approved plans.
2 Landscaping plan indicating type and size of plant material, and
location of irrigation system to be submitted for approval of the
Site & Architectural Review Committee and/or Planning Commission
prior to app ica tion or a ui ing permit.
Landscaping plan indicating type and size of plant material, and
location of irrigation system to be submitted for approval of the
Planning Director prior to application for a building permit.
Fencing plan indicating location and design details of fencing to
be submitted for approval of the Planning Director prior to applica-
tion for building permit.
3 Applicant to either (1) post a faithful performance bond in the
amount of $ 2000 to insure landscaping, fencing, and striping
of parking areas w~t~i'in 3 months of completion of construction; or
(2) file written agreement to complete landscaping, fencing and strip-
. ing of parking areas prior to application for a building permit.
4 Applicant to submit a plan, prior to installation of PG&E utility
(transformer) boxes, indicating the location of the boxes and
screening(if boxes are aboveground) for approval of the Planning
Director.
Applicant to submit a letter, satisfactory to the. City Attorney,
limiting the use of the property to: square feet of
office use, square feet of specu'~tive industrial
use, and square feet of warehouse use, prior to
issuance ~a-6uiTding permit.
5 All mechanical equipment on roofs and all utility meters to be
screened as approved by the Planning Director.
6 Building occupancy will not be allowed until public improvements
are installed.
*n/a: not applicable to this application.
PAGE 2 '
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: S 84-19
APPLICATION OF: Sayer, R.
SITE ADDRESS: 1805 S. Winchester
The applicant is notified as part of this application that he/she is required
to meet the following conditions in accordance with Ordinance of the City of
Campbell and Laws of the State of California.
~ All parking and driveway areas to be developed in compliance with
Section 21.50 of the Campbell Municipal Code. All parking spaces
to be provided with appropriate concrete curbs or bumper guards.
8 Underground utilities to be provided as required by Section
20.16.070 of the Campbell Municipal Code.
9 Plans submitted to the Building Department for plan check shall
indicate clearly the location of all connections for underground
utilities including water, sewer, electric, telephone and tele-
vision cables, etc.
10 Sign application to be submitted in accordance with provisions of
the Sign Ordinance for all signs. No sign to be installed until
application is approved and permit issued by the Building Depart-
ment (Section 21.68.030 of the Campbell Municipal Code).
11 Ordinance No. 782 of the Campbell Municipal Code stipulates that
any contract for the collection and disposal of refuse, garbage,
wet garbage and rubbish produced within the limits of the City of
Campbell shall be made with Green Valley Disposal Company. This
requirement applies to all single-family dwellings, multiple apart-
ment units, to all commercial, business, industrial, manufacturing,
and construction establishments.
12 Trash container(s) of a size and quantity necessary to serve the
development shall be located in area(s) approved by the Fire De-
partment. Unless otherwise noted, enclosure(s) shall consist of
a concrete floor surrounded by a solid wall or fence and have
self-closing doors of a size specified by the Fire Department.
All enclosures to be constructed at grade level, and have a level
area adjacent to the trash enclosure area to service these containers.
13 Applicant shall comply with all appropriate State and City re-
quirements for the handicapped.
Noise levels for the interior of residential units shall comply
with minimum State (Title 25) and local standards as indicated
in the Noise Element of the Campbell General Plan.
Applicant is hereby notified that he will be required to pay
Park Dedication In-Lieu Fee which will be assessed at the time
the subdivision map is submitted.
STANDARD FIRE XAZARD ABATEMENT COMMENT: The applicant is hereby notified that
the property is to be maintained free of any combustible trash, debris and weeds,
until the time that actual construction commences. A1I existing structures sha21
be kept secured by having windows boarded up and doors sealed shut, or be demolish-
ed or removed from the property. Sect. 11.201 & 11.414, 1979 Ed. Uniform Fire Code.
PAGE 3
_ CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: S 84-19
APPLICATION OF: Sayer, R.
~ SITE ADDRESS: 1805 S. Winchester
FIRE DEPARTMENT
A. Obtain permit from Fire Department for public assembly occupancy.
B. All exit doors shall have panic hardware.
C. Provide exit signs.
D. Provide fire protection equipment for cooking appliaeces.
E. Provide 40 8C fire extinguisher in kitchen.
F. Provide sprinkler head for trash enclosure.,
BUILDING DEPARTMENT
G. Change of occupancy from a 6-2 to an A-3.
H. Entire building must comply with the latest Building Code Section 502.
This also includes Title 24.
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
I. Meet all conditions of the Public Works Department.
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
~ : - - ~ ~- $- fi£W~32d- 3~#e- ~ fin- #fli'~ ~~pr~a- frf- #~e- ~a i1fTn fig- -D~-reC#~N'-,
prior-~ttr~~s3t~at~ee-fl# ~r-btriad-ittg-~pe~rrii=; ~~dif~a~i~g-~nxx~i#-i~-a~~~
xo-make-EO~tcfie#e-~pa~S-#~-i;~^a~s~h-t~nca~os~w^e-aes-s-~o-t~~~ealrl~:-- Ileleted per recom-
mendation of Site
Commit tee - 9/ 25/ 84 .
--~ The applicant is notified that he/she shall comply with all applicable Codes or
Ordinances of the City of Campbell which pertain to this development and are not
herein specified.
i 4z
.%-~
C1;; ^.f Co~:~~e:l
RESOLUTION N0. PLANNING CEPAIiTht~;;,
BEING A RESOLUIION OF THE CITY 0OIIlVCIZ OF THE CITY OF
CAMPBELL ESTABLISHING OBJECTIVES, CRITERIA, AND PRO-
- C~EDURES FOR THE ENVII.NTAL EVALt1ATI0N OF PROJECTS
AND THE PREPARATION OF NEGATIVE DECLARATIONS AND
ENVIROI~IDVTAL IMPACT REPORTS PURSiIANT TO THE
CALIFORNIA ENVIROI~A'IDVTAL QUALITY ACT (CBQA)
The City Council of the City of Campbell, California, does hereby
reso~ve as follows:
SECTION ONE: Prior Regulations. This Resolution supersedes City
Council Resolution No. 5164.
SECTION TWO: Definitions.
1. "City" shall mean the City of Campbell, California.
2. "Director" shall mean the Planning Director, Public Works Director,
Building_Official,-or other deparhnent heads.
3.j "Lead Agency" means the public agency which has the principal
responsibility for carrying out or approving a project. The Lead Agency
will decide whether an EIR or Negative Declaration will be required for the
project and will cause the doc~m-ent to be prepared.
4. "Responsible Agency" means a public agency which pzvposes to carry
out or approve a project, for which a Lead Agency is preparing or has pre-
pared an EIR or Negative Declaration. For the purposes~of CEQA, the term
"Responsible Agency" includes all public agencies other than the Iead Agency
rich have discretionary approval power over the project.
S. "Trustee Agenry" means a state agency having jurisdiction by law
over natural resources affected by a project which are held in trust for
the people of the State of California.
SECTION THREE: Adoption of State Guidelines By Reference.
Reference is hereby made to the Law and Guidelines for implementation
of the California Envirorunental Quality Act, as amended, which are hereby
made the official guidelines for projects which are before the City.
SECTION F(RJR:~ Authority.
The Directors shall be responsible for determining the applicability
of CEQA to projects and applications which are normally administered by
their department, and are responsible for compliance with this Resolution
and CBQA.
Resolution No.
Z.
SECTION FIVE: Negative Declarations.
1. After c~m~pletion of the initial study by Staff for a proj ect which is
not categorically or~ministerially exempt, the Director shall prepare a Negative
Declaration for consideration by the Planning Commission and/or City Council
when either:
a. The Intitial Study shows that there is no substantial evi-
dence that the project may have a significant effect on the enviro~unent;or
b. The Initial Study identified potentially significant effects
but:
(1) Revisions in the project plans or proposals made or
agreed to by the applicant before the proposed Negative Declaration is
released for public review would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects
to a point where clearly no significant effects would occiu~; and
(2) There is no substantial evidence before the agency that
the project as revised may have a significant effect on the environment.
The Director shall prepare the Negative Declaration as expeditiously
as possible, but it must be prepared not later than 45 days from the date
the project application is accepted as complete.
2, a. Notice that a Negative Declaration has been prepared for a
proposed project shall be given by publication at least ten (10) days
prior to consideration by the City for approval in a newspaper of general
circulation in the area affected by the proposed project.
b. The Director also shall send a copy of the notice with the
proposed Negative Declaration to every Responsible Agenry and Trustee
Agency concerned with the project and every other public agency with
jurisdiction by law over resources affected by the project.
3. a. The Negative Declaration shall be considered for approval
prior to consideration of the project itself at the first hearing on the
project. In the case where the City Council is the decision-making body,
the Planning Commission shall first consider the Negative Declaration
and forward a recomnendation to the City Council along with the rec~mmenda-
tion on the project.
b. Prior to approving the project, the decision making body
shall consider the proposed Negative Declaration together with any comments
received during the public review process. The decision making body shall
approve the Negative Declaration if it finds, on the basis of the Initial _
Study and any comments received, that there is no substantial evidence that
the project will have a significant effect on the environment.
Resolution No. 3.
c. A decision by the Planning Commission to approve a Negative
Declaration or require an EIR, whet it is the decision-making body, may ~
be appealed to the City Council within 10 days from the date of decision.
-- 4. After a decision making body approves a project for which a
Negative Declaration has been prepared, the Director shall file a Notice
of Determination with the County Clerk's office. The filing of the Notice
of Determinaatian and the posting an a list of such notices starts a 30-day
statute of limitations on court challenges to the approval under CBQA.
SECTION SIX: Pnvironmental Impact Reports.
1. a. After completion of the Initial Study for arty project which
is not categorically or ministerially exempt, the Director shall require
preparation of an Environmental Impact Report~(pIR) whenhe/she finds that the
project may have a significant effect on the environment. The decision to
require an EIR shall be made as expeditiously as possible, but in no case
shall the decision be later than 45 days from the date the project applica-
tion is accepted as complete.
b. The decision of the Director to require an EIR may be appealed
to the Planning Commission within ten (10) days from the date of the decision.
c. Immediately after deciding that an ElR is required fora pro-
ject, the Director shall send to each Responsible Agency, and to each Trustee
Agency (by Certified Mail) a Notice of Preparation stating that an EIR will
be prepared. The agencies shall have 45 days to respond with specific
detail about the scope and content of environmental information which mist
be included in the Draft EIR.
2. Envirormrental Impact Reports are to be prepared for the City of
Campbell by consulting firms with expertise in the preparation of EIR's
which have been approved by the Planning Commission. The City shall
maintain a list of approved consultants.
3, a. The Director shall prepare a Request for Pivposal (]D:'P)
detailing the issues to be addressed in the EIR. The RFP shall be ensiled
to the consultants on the City's list. Rice proposals are received, the
Director shall select the consultant to prepare the EIR fraan the three
lowest bids. The Director shall consider the following in selecting the
firm; (A) the consultants expertise in issues to be addressed; (B) quality
of previously prepared EIR's; and, (C) the time frame for completion.
Resolution No.
4.
b. The applicant shall bear all costs for the preparation of the
EIR. Prior to the consultant begirming work on the EIR, the applicant shall
deposit with the City an amount equal to the cost of the EIR plus an additional
10~,to cover airy unexpected costs. Any :excess shall be returned to the appli- _
cant, Any additional or unexpected costs shall be borne by the applicant.
4. a. The consultant shall first submit an Administrative Draft EIR.
The Director shall review the draft's acceptability relative to the given
project and its consistency with the CEQA guidelines. Clnce the Administra-
tive Draft is acceptable to the Director, the consultant shall submit 30
copies of the Draft Envirormiental Impact Report to the City for distribution
- and review.
b, A minimum period of 30 days (but not longer than 90 days) shall
be allowed for review and comment on the Draft EIR.
c. As soon as the Draft EIR is submitted, the Director shall file
- a Notice of Completion with the State Secretary of Resources. Also at this
time, the Director shall provide public notice of the availability of the
Draft EIR and the Planning Commission public hearing date. This notice
shall be given by publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the
area effected by the proposed project at the earliest possible publication
date.
S, a, ice the review period has ended, the consultant shall prepare
a Final EIR which includes responses to comments received during the review
period.
b. The Final EIR shall be considered at a public hearing prior to
consideration of the project itself. In the .case where the City Council is
the decision-making body, the Planning Commission shall first hold a public
hearing and forward a recommendation to be considered at the City Council
public hearing along with a recommendation on the project.
c. The decision-making body must certify that the Final EIR is
complete and must consider the information contained in the Final EIR prior
to considering the project itself.
6. The decision-making body shall not approve a project for which an
EIR was prepared unless either:
a. The project as app2vved will not have a significant effect
on the envirmiment; or
b. The City has
(1) IIiminated ar substantially lessened all significant
effects on the environment where feasible and substantiated it with findings.
Resolution No. 5.
(2) Determined that aziy remaining significant effects on the
environment are found to be unavoidable due to overriding concerns. Findings
and a Statement of Overriding Considerations are required.
c. With respect to a projedt which includes housing development,
the decision-making body shall not reduce the proposed rnanber of housing
waits as a mitigation measure if it determines that there is another feasible
specific mitigation measure available that will provide a comparable level of
mitigation.
7. a. The Director shall file a Notice of Determination following each
project approval for which an EIR was considered. The filing of the Notice
of Determination starts a 30-day statute of limitations on court challenges
to the approval wider CBQA.
b. The consultant shall provide a copy of the certified, Final
EIR to each Responsible Agency.
~~