Laserfiche WebLink
� y ' 8.A. - Page 54 <br /> �� <br /> Ta: City CounciI of Redwoad City <br /> FR: �oz�cerned Nei�hbars of Proposed Laurel Way P�anned Development Project <br /> RE: Appeal o� the Redwood City Plann.iz�g Commission's Certi�cation of the FinaI <br /> EZR, A�.option of Certain Findings Canc�ming Mitzgatian Measures, and <br /> Ado�tion of Mitigation Monitoring and Reparting Program for the Laurel Way <br /> PIanned Development F'roject <br /> DATE: Aug�asr 3Z, 2010 <br /> Dear Mr. Ma3Tor, Mac�a�n Dep�zty Mayor and Members of the City Council: <br /> �n ar,cordanc� vvith Article 48 of the Rectwoa� Ci�y Zar�ing Ordinance, we, t:he undersagned, <br /> respectful�y request the City Councii overtt7rn the decision of the P)an�ing Conunissxo� on <br /> An�st �4, 2flI0, ccrtifying an Env�a �mpact Repozt on the i,aurel V�Jaq Planned <br /> Develapment Project, Making Certaan Findings Concerning Mitigation iVleasures, and Adopti.zag <br /> a Mit�gation Monitoring az�d Reporting Progr�n (M�RP). ' Vi�e believe that the Final <br /> Envixozxzxkental Impact Report <br /> � fails to address several c�itica� impacts on �he heretofore undevelaped <br /> project area; <br /> * fails ta find significat�.t enviranrn.ental impac� �c�vhere such impact is <br /> suppo�ked by substantia� evidez�ce; a:n.d <br /> * adopts inadequate mitiga�ion rneasures to count�ract such impa.�ts, as <br /> applicable. . <br /> As sr�ch, the FEIR fails Co meet CaJzfornia Env�xonmental Quality Act (�EQA) � idelines. <br /> Given tl�e extremely short timeiine of seven (7) days in which to �le an appeal, appellants would <br /> appreciate the Co�ncil's considera�ion of this letter as a general suanmary of o�r appeal and we <br /> reserve the ri�ht ta supplement thi.s appeal wit� additiozzal �aterials within the time per�od <br /> allowed, <br /> '(The Gommass�on's accompanying Resolution also states that the Comrruss�on made Findings eoncerAing project <br /> aIterna�ives. Hou�ever, iztsofar as Che Cammission issued f�r�din;s that no signi�icant impact wc�nld rasult fro�n the <br /> pro�ect as proposed, the Commission speci�cally cancluded that it need nat make any findings r�garding the <br /> :FeasibiIity or desirability of any af the alternatives idenufied and analyzed in the �TR. As deseribed herein, this <br /> presents an additional problem for the Commission in ana,lyzing any Planned DeveIopment Pennit applieation for <br /> the praject.) <br />