Laserfiche WebLink
7A <br /> Page 64 <br /> ` . ��� <br /> dacument. Based on the wark comp�eted to date, excludir�g the aesthetics and cultural <br /> resaurces impacts, the City rnust conclude that an Environmental Irnpact Report (ElR) <br /> wili be required for the project on the basis of hydrofagy and water quality. <br /> : <br /> This determination is based on the project's inconsis#ency with provisions of the Ci�y's <br /> Ordtnance addressing "pro#ecte� watercourses" (Subsection F of SeLtian 32.12 of the <br /> Zaning Qrdinance). The hydrolagy and water quality impacts c�ulr# be m'stigated by <br /> revising the project; however, it is the CE�y's current understanding that the applicant <br /> does not want to mitigate these impacts by rnodifying the project. Fur�E�ermore, it is the <br /> Ci#y's understanding that the applicant does nat want ta �repare an Environmental <br /> � lrnpact Report. �n fact in your letter of January �4, yot� express your cl�ent's <br /> �nxiousness to procee� vrith the proje�ct and yet it berore the City Counci! as soon as <br /> possible. Yau state in your (etter: "Again, we fear#hat staff is grinding on our project in <br /> order to le�erage the owne�to cut the nurnber of propased units. This is not fair or right. <br /> Any such decis�on shoufd be coming from the City Coun�if-if we could ever get the <br /> project there." Again, pl�ase be assured tha# #he City is processing your project as it <br /> would any other project; our intent has alv�ays been ta da what is fair and righ# and we <br /> disagree whofeheartedly with your statement, especia�ly irt light a# all of the progress <br /> that has been made within past few months on the �nitia! Study. We have #'urthermore <br /> provicfed substan�ial time a:nd attention to your client frorn high level staff inembers � <br /> throughout the City orc�anizatian. Staff continu�s #o.demonstrate that we take your <br /> concerns seriously and will cor�kinue to do so as we maintain high qualitjr support from <br /> our staff and consul#an#team who ar� committed to processing this appfication. <br /> Because of your irtterest in moving this projec# forv�rard to the Cit� Coun�if as soon as <br /> � possible with�ut spending additional time and resources, s�aff has identi�ed several <br /> � alternatiL��s by wh�ch your proj�ct m�y corne before a decision�making bady: <br /> I <br /> t 1_ �ne aption wouid be to invoke the provisions of .Section 1527� of CEQA, which <br /> a�lows a pt�bEic agency fo deny a pro�eet where the lead agency can determine that a <br /> p�-oject cannot be approved an its mer's#s. C'sty staff has cansistently maintair�ed this <br /> position with respec#fo the project's site design, densify, bulft and mass, and general <br /> compatibility with the exis�ir�g Finger Avenue neighborhood within the context o�fhe <br /> City's policy statement concerning the creafiion of successful public spaces, adopted <br /> by the Gity Ca�n�if on Se�#ember 10, 20.0'i and the purpose af Planned � <br /> Development Permits. Amang the ifiems we have identifiied where the proposed <br /> project is nat. consistent with the intent of the palicy or the intended ou#comes of <br /> Planned Development Permits in Redwaod City is: <br /> � Lack of internal sidewafks a�d parkways and degradation of the Finger Avenue <br /> streetscape <br /> � Setbacks that are insUfficier�t for the proposed bulk and mass of the residential <br /> units <br /> • Su�standard roadway width <br /> = Site desig� tf�at creates the appearar�ce or feeling of a closed community <br /> = Residential units that have no re�atio�ship to Fing�r l�venue <br /> • Loss of significant mature trees <br /> -z- <br />