AgdaPkt 2020-11-09 Joint SA PFA - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Ms. Lindy Chan, Principal Planner City of Redwood City, Planning Services July 13, 2020 Page 20 reduce the impact to a level of insignificance (CEQA Guidelines, § 15162 (a)(3)(B)(2)); (3) a feasible project alternative or mitigation measure that clearly would lessen the environmental impacts of the project, but which the project's proponents decline to adopt (CEQA Guidelines § 15162 (a)(3) (13)(3), (4)); or (4) that the draft EIR was so fundamentally and basically inadequate and conclusory in nature that public comment on the draft was in effect meaningless (Mountain Lion Coalition v. Fish & Game Com. (1989) 214 Cal.App.3d 1043); Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of University of California (1993) 6 CalAth 1112, 1130, as modified on denial of reh'g (Feb. 24, 1994).) In this case, it is the District's position that the Draft EIR does not adequately analyze the Project's potential impacts related to schools, and mitigation measures that would lessen these impacts. The safety of its students is paramount to the District, and its safety concerns are not adequately addressed in the Draft EIR as currently constituted. Changes must be made to preserve the safety of the children and allow them to enjoy productive time at school, free from excessive traffic, noise, and pollution. Therefore, the District requests that the Draft EIR be updated and recirculated. District encourages the City and Developer to work cooperatively with the District and consider alternative mitigation measures, such as phasing and land dedication, which can assist in adequately mitigating the impacts on the District's schools and the affected surrounding environment. The District stands ready to continue meeting and working with the City and Developer to address these vital issues. Sincerely, LOZANO SMITH Harold M. Freiman HMF/gc Enclosures cc: Crystal Leach, Associate Superintendent (cleach@seq.org) Mary E. Streshly, Superintendent (mstreshly@seq.org)