Laserfiche WebLink
8.A. - Page 360 <br />B.A. Page 118 <br />11 IGH ICZA <br />I OMPS i Wive <br />Honorable Mayor and Mernbm of the City Council <br />August 15, 2011 <br />Page 7 <br />EIR without an actual prajeot application. The City will Marro to <br />re-evaluate the adequacy of the SIR once an actual ptajed is <br />proposed. For example, without the partidpa&a of the owners of <br />Lot Nos. 2, 12, sod 13, the Project as proposed in the EM diet <br />be approve& And, until the City saes a revised pts <br />application, the City does not know how the Laurel Way Jaunt <br />V emiure intends to deaign the mom mad, or why the tack of <br />participation of the ownem of any of these lots (and Lot No. 2 is <br />particular) will impact the legal feadbil.4 of constmeli+m of the <br />acmes road. <br />(latter' iron► Rids Jarvis, April 15, 201 1. p. 5.) In light of this advice, aril the other argaaneats <br />set frn(h herein, it is simply ndad•bogggag bust the City has opted to proceed with eontlaased <br />eonaiderntlon of the RIR where no project exit be described becaase aaP00et axis; "A <br />curtailed, edgmaatic, or u mWble project descriptions draws a red herring across the pads ofpublie <br />h p rLll (ommey ofinyo v. City ofI os Angeles, aegara, 71 Ca1.App.3d at 198.) <br />In addition to an accurate project description, the environmental uWag and baseline (based on <br />the project description) are acritical starting points for an EIR's impact andlYSix (dim fin*c' <br />below). (CEQA OWdelines,115125.) Until the baseline emrirommental conditions are fully and <br />psopexly established, the significance of a project's environmental impacts cannot be damned. <br />(Save Our Peninsula Conu*atee v Monterey Casnuy Bd. of S'upervisam (2001) 87 Cal -APP-4th <br />99,119.) Yt is axiomatic that if the preyed 4mdpdM environtneatal setting and baselinee are <br />inaa nuaic, an analysis of the project's potentially significant enviroamn0I imps will be <br />similarly flawed. (Id.; see also Cmay ofAmador v. El Dorado Cechy Water Agoicy (1999) 76 <br />CaLApp.46 931, 955.) <br />As several Piarming Ccrnmisdon members noted m previous prooeeding% the previously <br />su;W nitted and project plan provided b"ffiaiert infamation to alloy+ the mem►bm to make an <br />informed dmWon.a 7%e fragile condition of this neat area, its wrbremely steep topography. rim <br />e xisnca of ycw round ecus, springs, sod seeps, and its long-time undewelaped status requires <br />shut the project damipdon include drsiga level information so that the onvirormxntal impacts of <br />the proposal can be adequately analyzed. Absent such information, the cmnn-issian% conclusion <br />Out "no significant impact° would result from %a project clearly lacks key m4gK frog evidence, <br />much less a faotud basis.7 <br />Mi n ee, Planning tammia m Meeft Augmt 24, 2010. <br />7 We do vat believe that dA "ort before the Muse" app usah to the pr0ect's evWWtItm wAI i "NW by 00 <br />Ommomm n ft CommWwwn ffi= oftqpNOW*MMM m flMY1 WWW the" rWm sf tre Aust 24th <br />