AgdaPkt 2012-02-13 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

8. B. - Page 189 C. RESPONSE TO APPEAL FROM ADAMS BROADWELL JOSEPH & CARDOZO, DECEMBER 19, 20ll: Comment C-1: On behalf of Redwood Citizens for Responsible Development, which includes Vic Torreano, a resident of Redwood City, the Building a��d ConstrL�ction Trades Council of San Mateo, a�1d the Council's members a�ld fanulies who reside, work, and/or recreate in Redwood City, we are writing to appeal the Plam�ulg Corrulussion's December 13, 2011 certification of the Environmental Impact Repoi�t ("EIR") a�1d related approvals, u�cluding, bl�t not linuted to, the vesting tentative map a�7d pla�uled development perinit, for the 2580 El Canuno Real Residential Project ("Project"). BecaL�se tlus Project will significa��tly impact the environment atid health of cL�rrent a�1d fi�ture residents in Redwood City, we respectfi�lly request that the City Council deternune that a pL�blic hearing on fl�e appeal is necessary ul the public interest. We also request at least 10 days notice in adva�lce of the public hearulg on this appeal. This appeal is based on the City's failure to comply with the reqi�irements of the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") to prepare a legally adequate EIR for the Proj ect. On October 26, 2011, we submitted written conui�ents on the Project's Draft EIR to the City Plaiu7ulg Department. On December 13, 2011, we submitted written a��d supplemental written comments on the Proj ect's Final EIR to the Pla�uling Conunission. These conunents provide the basis for this appeal a��d demonstrate that the City failed to comply with the requirements of CEQA. Specifically, the City failed to inclL�de in the EIR a�l accurate description of the enviromnental setting, an analysis of all Project impacts a��d feasible initigation measnres required to reduce impacts to a less than significant level. I�� addition, the City failed to provide good faith, reasoned responses to our comments. We have attached our comments, which set forth the grounds for this appeal, as Attachments A, B, a��d C. Resuonse C-1: The conunentor offers no specific basis for its statements, beyond conunents that ha�e already received written responses, that tlie City failed to comply with the reql�irements of CEQA so no response is possible. To the e�tent that the conunentor believes that the Draft a�ld Final EIRs are u�adequate, the City respectfi�lly disagrees with their comments. The Final EIR does comply with the reqL�irements of CEQA as discussed in detail in the response to the commentor's October 26 letter a�ld two December l; letters. Comment C-2: This appeal is also based on the City's failure to ensure that the Project approvals provide good jobs a��d affordable housu7g in Redwood City. Resuonse C-2: Tlus is not a conunent on the Draft or Fu1al EIR, a�ld does not raise any issues for which CEQA requires a written response. Comment C-3: We are including a$270.00 check for the appeal filing fee. Thatil� yoL� for yoL�r attention to this important matter. Resuonse C-3: Tlus conunent is acla�owledged. 2580 El Cainino Real Residenrial Project 21 Response to Conmients Recei��ed on Final EIR Cin� of Red��ood Cin� Jannai� 2012