Laserfiche WebLink
� 7A <br /> , � .. .. .�.p Page 9 <br /> L� � j i t��f 3L�4V*�1,t <br /> �:; a.� � ,J �' ����� <br /> ; ;� �k� <br /> ; �AY � � Z�it�� f,.�� <br /> �-, - , <br /> �t:`�a���a�ua�a��t�� � May 28,2D09 <br /> To:City Councii,City of Redwood City � ���'��-��� _.......,..��� <br /> From:Finger Avenue Pride Comm�ttee . .� <br /> Subject:Appeai vf Planning Commission adopt�vn of an Initial Study/Mi�igafied <br /> Negative Declaratian,prepared by Irnpact Scier�ces,Inc.,for a nine-lot <br /> residential subdivision at 50,80,and 88 Finger Avenue,Project No. <br /> EA2006-03. <br /> Dear Mayor FousC and City Councii Members, <br /> �IUe respectfully request the opportunity to appeai before the City Council,the <br /> Planning Commission's May 19,200�adop�ion of an Init�al Study/Mitigated <br /> Negative Declaration[MND)for a n�ine-Iot residen�ial subdivisian Iocated a�5U,8�, <br /> _ . and 88 Finger Avenue. <br /> Re�son� r�he An�eal <br /> We believe that the Commission's action was misguided,because in adopting the <br /> MND the Commission failed to recognize that the eniire rec4rd contains numerous <br /> facts and expert opinion supported by facts that clearty suppor�a fair argumenC�'or <br /> the po�ential for significant environmental impacts resuiting from the proj�ct Such <br /> a record requires rejection of the MND in favor of an EIR even if it is the <br /> Commission's good faith opinion that other evi,dence supports the adequacy of a <br /> nega�ve declaration(CEQA Guideiines Sec.1.5064�f�(1)).In.passing CEQA,the <br /> Legis�ature made i�clear that EIR review is favored,which is why�he fair argument <br /> threshold is low.Any question as to whether an EIR.is needed must be resolved in <br /> favor of greater environmentai protec�ion, <br /> We also believe tha�the Commission acted inappropriately when it aceepted the <br /> opinion of staff and�he applican�s consuitants that the pro�ec�would not present <br /> significant impacts,even though other qualif ed expert�presented fact-based <br /> interpretations and opinions to the contrary.The CEQA Guidelines[Sec.150b4(g)) <br /> are very clear that any disagreement am�ng expert opinions supported by facts over <br /> the significance of an effect on the environment requires thaC the effect be treated as <br /> significant by the lead agency and that an EIR be prepared. <br /> Finaily,by moving imm�diately to adopt the MND,the Commission's Vice-Chair, <br /> who suppor�ed the�roject,prevented th.e remainder of the Commission from <br /> conside�ing a motion to deny the project at the outset,which would have rendered <br /> �he praject exempt from CEQA.The CEQA Guidelines(Section 15270(a))expiici�ly <br /> state,"CEQA does not apply to projects wh�ch a public agency rejects or ' <br /> disapproves".The�1ice-Chair's acLion may weil have caus�d vne Commissioner to <br /> vote to adopt the MND simply to be able to move ahead to the next step and vote <br /> agains�the PD pe�-mit Civen the Commissian's denial Qf�:e PD per.mit and Ves�ng <br /> 1 <br />