AgdaPkt 2011-08-22 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

8.A. - Page 146 August 15, 2011 Dear Honorable Mayor anc� Members of the City Council. I respectfully request that you overturn the Planning Cammission's certification of the Laurel Way EIR on the grounds that it fails to meet CEQA requirements. Listed below are just a few of my many concerns abaut the adequacy af the EIR. THE FINAL EIR FAILS TO ADEQUATELY CONSIDER CHALLENGES & COMMENTS TO THE DEIR. At the Planning Cammission hearing an ApriI 7, 2010 to consider the Draft EIR [and at the hearing on August 24, 2010 to consider the Final EIR), both Planning Commission members and community members asked for additional infarmation and asked questions in letters, e-mails, and in public meetings which were not adequately answered ( in some cases, nat answered at all). Council members and neighbors also raised (in letters, emaiI, and publi� testimany) con�erns about inadeyuacies in the draft EIR and apparent risks from the project. Despite a�l this communication, very few changes were made in the FEIR. [It bears repeating �hat the most significant change in the Final EIR was the insertion of area house size comparisions at Appendix C, which the staff report of August $, 2011 points out were wholly incorrect.] Included among the many significant challenges were the following: 1. BIOLOGY (please see attached reference from EIR reports) � The biological reports claim, incorrectly, that serpentine soils do NOT ocCUr on the site. • The biological reports base [in part) their conclusions about the non- existence of certain rare plants [as welI as insects] on their incorreCt claims of the non-existence af serpentine sails. � The biolagical reports rely on out-dated information about serpentine obligate plants. Current s�holarship disputes these claims. • The field work was of tao shart a duration for a site which [althougl� small] has a very variable terrain and underlying rock formations. o The main field work was done in only Z days.