My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Browse
Search
AgdaPkt 2009-08-03 spc, clsd and jnt
RedwoodCity
>
City Clerk
>
Agenda Packets
>
2000-2009 partial
>
2009
>
AgdaPkt 2009-08-03 spc, clsd and jnt
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/24/2013 12:20:14 PM
Creation date
7/30/2009 12:41:18 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CC Index
CC Index - Document Type
Agenda Packet
Meeting Type
Joint
Agency Type
City Council and Redevelopment Agency
Date
8/3/2009
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
302
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
7A <br /> Page 13 <br /> hand.According to CEQA guidelines,the Comrnission has no authority to act as an <br /> arbiter -it instead must find in favor af environmental review via an EIR whenever <br /> Chere is a disagreement among experts as to whether such a revierr,t�s warranted. <br /> With respect to pvtential traffic safe�y issues,the City has not performed any <br /> evaluations,nor has it bothered to refute or even respond directly to any of our . <br /> concerns in regard to the specrfrc design of the proposed pr�vate roadway,except to <br /> recommend denial of an exception in the Feb.10 staf�report--a recommendation <br /> �hat impi�citiy veri.fies our cvncerns.In x�s May 19 report to the Commission,s�aff <br /> concluded that the Commission coutd find in favor of the roadvsray exception but did <br /> not address how any of the Iatest design changes(one-way road,vvalkway <br /> demarca�ion within the roadway�addresses Cheir�arlier safety concerns--or aurs. <br /> B.y adoptin�the MND with respect ta tra�fic safeLy impac�s,the Cvmmissian simply <br /> ignored the substantial evidence and reasonable assurnptions predicated on facts, � <br /> that we put forward in support of a fair argument for potential impacts. <br /> Even though�b.e Cornmission has denied the current project,the approved MIVD <br /> could apply to future project proposals for the site--some of which might prove <br /> more detrimental fio the environ.ment than the currenfi p�rvject.Uncter these <br /> circumstances,we request that the Councii overturn t1�.e Commission's Nfay 19� <br /> action to adopt the MND for the Finger Avenue project.When the Council reviews <br /> the eri�ire r�cord,w�beiieve that it vurill be eviderit�i you that there is sul�stan�al,if <br /> not overwhelm�ng,evidence in fact-based expert opinion to indicate that significant <br /> enviranmental impacts may resuit from this project.That being the case,the Council <br /> shouid grant the appeal and set aside the inadequate MND.it can then uphotd�he � <br /> Commission`s denial of the groject via exemption from CEQA pursuant to CEQA <br /> Guideline section 1.5270(a).Otherwise,an EIR would be required in order�o <br /> consider project approval. <br /> Thank you ver�much for your considearation af�his appeal, <br /> ' � C��,�c,�,� C ` <br /> Dartiel Ponti . <br /> Spokesperson,Fin�er Avenue Pride Committee <br /> 5�Finger Avenue <br /> Redwood City,Cl� 94Q62 . <br /> pan�i@rcn.com <br /> (65�)282-9814 <br /> 5 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.