AgdaPkt 2011-08-22 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

8.A. - Page 101 The Hon�arable Mayor and Mernbers of the City Council Page 3 of 4 August 15, 2� � Y The Treadwell and Rollo report of Dece�m�� 23, 2008 r�preseni� �a third party rsvie�r of the TRC Lawney x�part and tke Cornerstone repazt, c:onsisting of 13 page�, plus exhibits, �nd other c3ocum�ats. It is hand to b�elieve that any mor� thorough, detailed or complete geotech�ica� investigation could �e doae for a project sttch as these proposed f 6 la#s. The commen# fiam Staff that t]tie words "� the extent feasible" contained in the final EIR, Sect;ion 3.5, page 3-S, August 2414, constitutes a qualification that °�aeds tp be bettex exp�ained in EIR..." is svmewhat puazling. The qualification on the mitigation measures (imp�eancnt tn the ext�nt feasible) is language that comea firom the dra�sman of the EIIt, nat from the geoteGhniral. experfs who prepared their r�ports. The feasibility of impiemeafing any one of #he 21 bullet point items Iisted in Sectian 3.� of the final EIR will be deterimined on a lot by-lot, hous�by-l�a�se 3�asis. For example, bullet paint 7 provides that "all the residences shall be supported on drilled, cast in place, s�raight s�aft friction piers or similar construction COnStde�abo� 811a1I �]e givQt oII a C[tse-Ly-CasB ba..�is tn the need for extra steel reinforcemeat of the piers and grade beams. ,," To put it anoth� way, each lot and each residence will be e�raivated on a case-by-corse l�ssis to detexmine which of f.he mitigation measures are applicable ta that Iot and to that residen�e. Tbis shauld be crbvious from reviewing the fu�al EIR �.nd the coasultants' reports, findings and concl�sions upom which the final ETR is ba�ed. It makes 1it�le sensc to say that tltie use of these werds "tc3 the extent feasible" �tequires th�t the �IR should lae sent back ta tl�e Sta.�' or to the Planning Commissian ta explain �vhat is mea,nt by "to � e�nte�at feasible.°' In short, what is or is not feasible will be det�rmined on a ease-hy-case basis, an� �e City controls the pracessing procedwr�s during the course of whiGh the issue of feasibility will be determined as each set pf plaz�s presented ta the City is analyzed t� determine compIiance with the mi.tigatian measur�s. The Staff says that the second problem wl�ich should be fixed is Appendix C af the fina.t BIR which identifies building syuare faatage of other homes in the vici�ity af the �raposed develapment. Staff has de�terrmined that the data in tha# appendix is incarnect. This ignar�s the fact that A�pcndix D provided by the project applieant i�'corre� with regard to square fdotage of homes. The f�ct that A,ppendix C(not prepare�d by the applica�nt) �iffers from Appendix D shox�Ld not require sending tlxe report back ta 5teff or the Plaaning Commis�ion because the 5taff has found errars in Appendix C, but nat in Appendi� D. In the Apri1 15'� letter fram Rick razvis, Esq., to the applicatrt and the neighbars' �.R5[)CISttOn, MI' ]arvis observea that the 16 lots were lawfully created. He t�en sites l�rti�le 46 of the City's zaning code which authorizes the Cit�y to issue planned developme�n# permits aad stexes that Sect�an 46.7(A�(3) °`authorizes the City tn reduce minimum building site sizes far proj�cts subject tn planned developnnent permits." 'We beg to di�fe� with #hat inter�retation of Section 46.7(A). What the section sa.ys in fact is that the Zaning Administratar ar the Flanning Commissian in appro�ing a PD appli�a�ion, may permu (notc that it says permit, not require) any of the follawing requirements to he differeat frorn those which wc�uld athetv�rise ap�alp, and that the fallowing madtflcations "cari be gian#ed" (r►�te t�t it daes not say required, but says granted) if it will prnvide an environnaent of physical �d tunctional desirability, etc. The T:14VPWIIQ5a1iTxTFERSUPNIL'ity oFRedwood Cityj08 15 11].daa