AgdaPkt 2017-09-11 Closed and Joint SA PFA

Browse Search

7.A. - Page 6 Redwood Village Business Association on the grounds that the Planning Commission; (1) failed to comply with CEQA, and; (2) failed to support its findings for the Conditional Use Permit with substantial evidence in the record. As discussed below, City Council has grounds to deny the appeal and uphold the approval of the Project. In the following sections, this report explains (1) the City complied with CEQA and no further environmental analysis is required, and; (2) substantial evidence supports the Use Permit findings for nonconforming parking. I. The City Complied with CEQA and No Further Environmental Analysis is Reauired Appellant contends that the City failed to comply with CEQA. The appeal letter does not include specific assertions as to why the Appellant contends the City failed to comply with CEQA. Rather, the appeal letter refers to eight submittals that are a part of the record for the Project "and all other evidence in the record before the City Council on this appeal" as the basis for Appellant's assertion of a CEQA violation. In accordance with CEQA, an Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) were prepared. These documents evaluated all environmental impacts anticipated to be generated by the proposed Project, and with the implementation of applicable mitigation measures, concluded that there would be no significant impacts to the environment. The IS/MND identified potential environmental impacts that could be generated by the project relating to: air quality, cultural resources, geology and soils, greenhouse gas emissions, and hazardous materials. All of the project's potential impacts would be reduced to a less-than-significant level with mitigation measures. The attached Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) (Attachment 1, Exhibit B) outlines all mitigation measures that will be incorporated into the Conditions of Approval for the project. The IS/MND was available for public review and comment from September 30, 2016 until November 1, 2016. During that time, six comment letters were received and verbal comments were received at the November 1, 2016 Planning Commission hearing. Prior to the April 4, 2017 Planning Commission hearing, a traffic study from Prism Engineering was submitted by a neighboring property owner. In addition, three comment letters were received prior to the hearing and verbal comments were provided at the hearing. LSA prepared an updated Response to Comments memo dated June 8, 2017 that provides response to all comments received during the public review and comment period, including comments received prior to and at the April 4, 2017 Planning Commission meeting and includes updated traffic counts. The updated Response to Comments contains detailed responses to the first five submittals cited in the appeal letter as the basis for this appeal. The remaining three