Laserfiche WebLink
SHUTE, MIHALY <br />U---vElNBERcERu-p <br />396 HAYES STREET, SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94102 <br />T:415 552-7272 F:415 552-5816 <br />www.smwlaw.com <br />ELLISON FOLK <br />Attorney <br />fqlk@smwlaw.com <br />March 5,2013 <br />Vìø Federal and E-MaÍl <br />Ms. Denyelle Nishimori <br />Town of Truckee <br />10183 Truckee Airport Road <br />Truckee, CA 96161 <br />Re: Canyon Springs Project Draft Environmental Impact Report <br />Dear Ms. Nishimori: <br />This firm represents Mountain Area Preservation Foundation ("MAPF") <br />and Saving Open Space around Glenshire ("SOSG") with regard to the Canyon Springs <br />Project ("Project"). This letter provides MAPF's and SOSG's comments on the Project <br />and the associated draft Environmental Impact Report ("DEIR"). We submit this letter to <br />inform the Town that the Project violates the minimum standards of adequacy under the <br />California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), Public Resources Code $ 21000 et <br />seq., and the CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, title 14, $ 15000 et seq. <br />The Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") is "the heart of CEQA." Laurel <br />Heights Improvement Ass'nv. Regents of Uníversity of California (1988) 47 Cat.3d376, <br />392 (citations omitted) ("Laurel Heights I"). It "is an environmental 'alarm bell' whose <br />pulpose it is to alert the public and its responsible officials to environmental changes <br />before they have reached ecological points of no return. The EIR is also intended 'to <br />demonstrate to an apprehensive citizenry that the agency has, in fact, analyzed and <br />considered the ecological implications of its action.' Because the EIR must be certified or <br />rejected by public officials, it is a document of accountability." Id. (citations omitted). <br />Likewise, NEPA requires that federal agencies "consider every signihcant aspect of the <br />environmental impact of a proposed action . . . [and] inform the public that fthey have] <br />indeed considered environmental concerns in ftheir] decision-making processfes]." Earth <br />Island Institute v. (1.5. Forest Service (9th Cir. 2003) 351 F.3d 1291,1300 ((citations <br />omitted).