AgdaPkt 2011-08-22 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

8.A. - Page 118} I ! IQI �GIl�t� manatt � phelps � phillips Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council August 15, 201 l Page 7 EIR withaut an actual project application, The City wi11 have to re-�valuate th� adeyuacy of the EIR ance an actual project is proposed. For exarnple, �vithout the participatioi� of tl�e awners of Lot Nos. 2, 12, and 13, the �'roject as praposed in the EIR cannot be appraved. And, until the City sees a revised praposed application, the City does nat kn.ow how the Laurel Way Joint Ventux•e intends ta design f,he access road, or whether the lack af participation of t�e c�wners of any of these lots (and Lot No. 2 in particular) will impact the legal feasibility of canstruction af the access raad. (Letter frorn Rick Jarvis, April 15, 2011, p. 5.) In iight of lhis advic�, and the other arguments set forth herein, it is simp�y naind-boggling that 4�he City has opted to proceed with continued consicieration of the EIR whe�e no project can be described because na praject exists. "A curtailed, enigmatic, or unstab�e pro�ect descriptio� draws a red herrin� across the path of public input." (Caunty oflraya v. City ofLos Angeles, supra, 71 Ca1.App.3r1 �t 198.) In addition to an ac;curaie project description, the environinental setting and baseline (based on the project descxiption} are critical starting points for an EIR's impact analysis {discussed further below). {CEQA Guideiines, § 15125.) Ui�ti1 the baseline environmental conditions are fally and properly established, the significance of a project's cnvironmental ixnpacts cannot be detennined, (Save Dur Peninsula Committee v. Monterey County Bd. of Supervisors (2001} 87 Cal.App.4th 49, 1� 9.} It is a7ciomatic that if the project descrzption, en�ironmental setting and baselines are inaccurate, an analysis of the project's potcntially significant enviro�unental impacts will be similarly flawed. (Id.; see alsa County of Amador v. Ed Dorada County Water Agency (1999) 7b Ca1.App.4th 931, 955.) As several Planning Comnnission rnembers noted in pre�ious proceedings, the previously submitted anci project plan provided insufficient infonnation to allow the meinbers to make an informed dc,cision. 'Tk�e fr�gile condition of this rural area, its extremely steep topography, the existence of year round creeks, spxings, and seeps, and its long-tiz�ne undeveloped status requires that the project description include design-]evel information so that the environmental irnpacts of the proposal can be adequately ana�y�ed. Absent such infonnation, the Corr�mission`s conclusion that "na significa��t impact" wout� result froxn the project ciearly lacks key supparting evidence, much less a factual basis. 6 Minutes, Planni�g Gommisaion Meeting, August 24, 2a 10. ' We do not believe that this "cart befare the horse" agproech to the pib}ect's evaluation was intended by the Commission as the Commissioners themael�es expressed interest in re�iewing these reports at the August 24th