Laserfiche WebLink
<br />98 <br />Page 9 <br /> <br />TOBIN & TOBIN <br /> <br />Redwood City Council. <br />February 12,2007 <br />Page 2 <br /> <br />Appellants advised the Department that Redwood City policy recognizes the importance <br />of natural sunlight, and that the Department had previously found in a prior environmental <br />impact repOli for the Marina Shores Village Project that shadowing to commercial property, as <br />well as residential, constituted a significant environmental impact. Appellants submitted <br />undisputed evidence to the Department that implementation of the Precise Plan would result in <br />substantial shadowing, which according to the City's own policy, should constitute a significant <br />environmental impact requiring consideration of reasonable alternatives. <br /> <br />The Department's Response to Appellants' comments admitted that the City's policy <br />recognizes shadowing to be a significant environmental impact, but contended that such impact <br />was only "significant" when applied to residential areas: <br /> <br />As the City interprets its General Plan policy. . . a shadow effect is <br />considered to represent a significant environment.'ll impact <br />only where it would have a substantial effect on a residential <br />living environment. A substantial negative effect on a <br />residential living environment would be inconsistent with City <br />General Plan policy (Land Use Element Policy L-l) calling for <br />tbe protection of residential land uses from other land uses 'which <br />may have a negative impact 011 the residential living <br />environment,' and would therefore represent a significant <br />environmental impact.. <br /> <br />(See EIR, Section 19.01, p.3-34) (emphasis supplied). Therefore., because the <br />Department denied that shadowing constituted a "significant environmental impact" in areas <br />other than residential, the ErR does not consider reasonable alternatives to the project and/or <br />reasonable mitigation measures, as would be otherwise required under CEQA. See 14 Cal. <br />Admin Code Title. 14, S 15126.6. A true and correct copy of the Department's Response to <br />Appellants' comments is attached hereto as Exhibit "B." <br /> <br />Appeal <br /> <br />1. Implementation Of The Precise Plan Will Result In Significant Shadowing To <br />Brewster A venue. <br /> <br />It is undisputed that the Precise Plan will result in significant shadowing to the Subject <br />Property and to other properties along Brewster Avenue. The Department admitted in its <br />response to Appellants' comments on the Precise Plan that the shadowing caused by the Precise <br />Plan would be significant: <br />