Laserfiche WebLink
<br />COMMENT LETTER F <br />7A <br />~ IE 1: IE g 1 0/1 IE ~ 4c J'..e6 <br />JUN 1 2 ..001 <br /> <br />June II, 2007 <br /> <br />CITY or- REDWOOD CITY <br />PLANN1"lG SERVICES <br />Mark ou ar <br />535 Flynn Ave. <br />Redwood City, CA 94063 <br /> <br />Jill Ekas PLG, <br />Redwood City Planning Commission <br />City of Redwood City <br />1017 Middlefield Road <br />Redwood City, CA 94063 <br /> <br />Dear Ms. Ekas and Redwood City Planning Commission, <br /> <br />It is possible, as in this case, that a FEIR. under CEQA, be acceptable and in confonnance <br />but not honor the spirit of the Law and protect the environment of the community. A <br />FEIR. can be crafted so that all the boxes are checked and all the i'8 dotted but not honor <br />the spirit of CEQA. <br /> <br />In the article: FIXING CEQA OPTIONSANDOPPORTUNlTIESFORREFORMINOTIlECALIFORNIA <br />ENVIRONMENTAL ~ct by John Landis, RolfPendall, Robert Olshanky, and <br />William Huang <br />California requires that an EIR be prepared if a proposed project <br />"might have" an impact on the environment (as opposed to the higher <br />standard of "would have" or "would probably have" an environmental <br />impact). <br />CEQA's original goal was to improve California's environment. <br />Lead Agencies should be consistent in their reviews. <br /> <br />This FEIR for the Redwood City Costco Wholesale Project is inadequate in a <br />number of areas and should not be certified: . <br /> <br />a) Proposed Project, No Fueling Center. <br />b) Alternative Site <br />c) Fueling Center Addition Only <br />d) No Project <br />How can other Agencies respond to a project that does not exist in the NOP? <br /> <br />Throughout the DElR and in responses to Comment Documents, there is no consistency <br />in Project Description. Some of the technical data coliected and the concluSions to <br />technical studies are the results of studies perfonned on a smaller project, 148,663 square <br />foot warehouse with fueling station. Even David Rogers, in a letter dated January 12, <br />2007, Appendix A FEIR., suggests that the project is 148,663 and not the Preferred Plan. <br /> <br /> <br />1) This project is inadequate in the Project Description. From the beginning, with the <br />Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report. dated September 9. <br />2005 (one year before the DEIR.) NOP pg.3 Project Alternatives does not list the <br />Preferred Plan: <br />