Laserfiche WebLink
8.A. - Page 359 <br />B.A. - Page 117 <br />manau I OwIps I phllbs <br />Honorable Mayor and Meanbers ofdw City Council <br />August 15, 2011 <br />Page 6 <br />impact was purportedly based, are hmufficient and unrealistic — in dol, they do not lemon to an <br />'jxWpifiaant' level the irreparable environmental darnaM devastation and rials resulting from <br />this prnjoct. AcootdbWy, we reapecifidly request the City COUNd to manse the PlannM <br />CommisdoWs ccatification ofthe BIR, and emend its fundings a= rdiney- <br />(a) The IE HI 3 Proled 2whigm It LAARRAN <br />(t) <br />rnloel Before CROA Caen Be Ca <br />As—dad <br />CBQA regerires tbet a project description be acenrate` stable and finite and include p vdle <br />locstionlbouzndarics, a door staten►aot of project objectives and general description of the <br />project's technical, mmimc and mvirot =W &Nacmistira. (CataV of 1'nyo a City of Lass <br />Anpks (1977) 71 CalApp.3d 185,192; CEQA Guidelines, § 15124.) Browser ihcappiiearrt <br />voluntarily withdrew its -application for entitlanents on Mareb 22, 2011, dw project dewdli ion <br />contained in the BIR satisfies none of these requirmne nts. In short, in the absence of s project <br />application, that is Mg Wgiect flucm he MMh&W under <br />it is not known at dtiis time what exactly will be proposed for development or em the KMV of <br />the project site itself. Without a description of the project (because the application has bem <br />withdrawn and we cannot s mould a as to what will be proposed in the mol, we are unable to <br />evaluate whether the BIR has Ned to disclose hapsa#s of &v project, (SM 04, SORMWv <br />Casogy Waw DiA v, County ofOrange (1981)118 Cal.App.3d 818, 829 ) While we have an <br />idea of what was p wposed in the past, no intelligent evaluation of the potential onviroanmcatal <br />c9bois ofthe projoct can be eonda W until we ]mow what is now proposed. (Sem Jangrein <br />RapW/Mk fe Aweve Ctr. v County ofSa udskas (1994) 27 CalAppAth 713, 730.) <br />Signiiicatnt questions rarnain unanswered. For example, when the project is re -08d (as we <br />prmm it will be eventually) will the project boundaries be significantlY shared dire to the <br />emciusion o€throe ofihe lots the applicant had included in the original pmjcct applieation? Will <br />the applicant propose a new subdivision, or some sort of lot merger and lot line adjustment of up <br />to 20 individuAl lots? Will the mad be required to be widened to 50 feet as rcgW'W by the <br />original subdivision trtap (see Higblanda of Emerald Lake, 5ubdivisiag One, Sheet Four)? mill <br />an open space easoment or conservation earoement be dedicated in the crock bad, and who will <br />accept or hold that casenw tt in perpetutityt In the absence of a pwject application, the list Of <br />unanswered questions is infcnito. <br />The City's own outside land use co m W confirm: that the Is& of a project is none hW. <br />Under the preeeat circumstances, es, there are detain practical <br />difficulties with the City Council coansideting certification of the <br />