My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Browse
Search
AgdaPkt 2017-04-03 Joint SA PFA
RedwoodCity
>
City Clerk
>
Agenda Packets
>
2010-2019
>
2017
>
AgdaPkt 2017-04-03 Joint SA PFA
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/11/2017 10:44:41 AM
Creation date
3/30/2017 4:41:02 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CC Index
CC Index - Document Type
Agenda Packet
Meeting Type
Joint
Agency Type
City Council and Successor Agency and Public Financing Authority
Date
4/3/2017
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
399
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
7 <br /> <br />“The reviewing body [City Council] shall hear the appeal as a new matter. <br />The original applicant has the burden of proof. In addition to considering <br />the testimony and evidence presented at the hearing on the appeal, the <br />reviewing body [City Council] shall consider all pertinent information from <br />the file as a result of the previous hearings from which the appeal is <br />taken.” <br /> <br />The following section provides a detailed response to the points raised in the appeal <br />letter. <br /> <br /> <br />ANALYSIS <br /> <br />I. The City Complied with CEQA and No Further Environmental Analysis Is <br />Required <br /> <br />Appellant asserts that the City must prepare an EIR for the project and/or that the <br />project violates provisions of the 2011 Environmental Impact Report for the Downtown <br />Precise Plan (DTPP EIR). Appellant sets forth numerous contentions in support of this <br />assertion. (See Appeal, pp. 2-22.) <br /> <br />The subsections below (a) summarize how the City’s environmental review processes <br />complied with CEQA, and (b) explain why Appellant’s contentions that the City must <br />prepare an EIR lack merit. <br /> <br />a. The City’s Environmental Review Complied with CEQA <br /> <br />The DTPP EIR analyzed the potentially significant impacts associated with buildout of <br />the larger downtown area (approximately 183 acres) pursuant to the DTPP. Pursuant to <br />the DTPP EIR and the Mitigation, Monitoring and Reporting Program, the City Council <br />adopted all feasible mitigation measures to mitigate impacts that would otherwise be <br />significant. However, mitigation of some impacts was not feasible. The City Council <br />adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations, finding that the significant and <br />unavoidable impacts of implementation of the DTPP are outweighed by the benefits of <br />the DTPP. The benefits identified by the City Council include promoting sustainable <br />growth, fostering work and leisure activities in the downtown, promoting development <br />that preserves historic resources, reducing suburban sprawl and enhancing economic <br />development. <br /> <br />The DTPP EIR explained that the analysis of some potential impacts stemming from the <br />DTPP were speculative at that time, and therefore that the City would subsequently <br />consider whether a particular development project might cause a significant impact that <br />would require further environmental review. <br /> <br />8.A. - Page 7
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.