AgdaPkt 2011-08-22 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

• � 8.A. - Page 56 . Appeal of the I�edwood City Flanning Coznznission's Certification of the Final ETA Au�zst 31, 2030 Page 3 af 8 the proposed houses were sig�.ificarztly larger than houses in the aarea, wonld be reinstated. No discussion ens�ed as to how this inaccurate data ar �e new car�clusis�ns �o�nd t�eir way into t�e FEIFZ, or whether the significance of this erf (aIbeit corrected) reflecte� on the accuraGy or potential bias in tE�e remainder of t�Ze FEIR. It s�ould also be nated that the error was brought to fihe Coziuni�sion's attention by an affected homeownez, Based on the cpmments and questions posed by the Camrnissioners, they did not appear to agree an tE�e irn�pact af t�ieir blankcet appz of the FEIR and znitzgation measures an future eonsideration af the Planned Develo�me�t Pezxn.it application. While we appreciate ihe fact that certification of the FEIR witlx no exceptions ar ftnclin�s of significant irrtpact renders moot the ewa.Iuatior� of lssser-impact a�ternatives at this time (Resolufiion, p. 3), the Cam2nission may not have appreciated that its braad brush approval would rnal�e it �ifficult to approve a.nything but the project, in its cnrrent over-large format, vvith al� its devasta�ing xrzlpact We da not beIieve th�s is a result the Conur�ission intended. REAS ONS FOR APPEAL: We believe the Planning Cornrnission's decision to c�rtify the Final Enviranmenta.l Tmpact Report (FE1R) vcras incorrect and that its findin�s that t�ae propased project will resuXt in "less than signzficant environmental impacts" across al� categories -- aesthetic impact, biological impact, hydrology, geological zznpact, air quaiity, traffzc and noise -- are nat supported by substantiai evidezace in the record. We further be�ieve that t�e reccrrd demonstz�ates the project's signi.f'icant and d�vastatirag environmental impact and that comments af the cornmunity and izzfozx�atian submitted ha�re nat been taken into considera�ion by the Comznzssion. (�ur spec�fic reason� for appeal are sumz�,arized as fal3ov��s: = According to Geology az�d Hydrolagy reports provided by the City, sevezal critical measures necessary to evaluate the enviranzn.ental impaet of the project have nat yet been undertaken. These inc�ude �radin� and imprc�veznent plans, a detailed Erosion Canrral Plan, a Storranwater Pollution Prevention Plan, a Spill Contingency a.nd Coun�rrr�e.asur�s Plan, an evaluation df an existinb landslide an Lots 3 az�.d 4, az�c� other critzcaI t�sks such as temporary excavation support plans, rietailed founda�ion explorations and geotechnic� investigatians an each �at. {See FEIR, Appendix A: Miti�ation �!Ionxtoring and Reparting Probram; Resolution, Exhibit A, pp, l 1-2Q) Many comrr�ents on the DEIR noted serious concer.ns as to the pxaposed grading and excava�ions that vvot�ld destabili�e the Y�illside {which is divid�d by fhe undeveloped portia�a af Laure� Way}. This wouId seriausly impact and enc�anber not only the two existin� residences on the unpaved porCior� of Laurel Way, but the adjar,�nt dawnnilI residences on