AgdaPkt 2012-02-13 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

8. B. - Page 2 On December 13, 2011, the Planning Commission held a public hearing, considered public input, certified the EIR and approved the Planned Development, Vesting Tentative Map and reduced guest parking (per Zoning Ordinance Article 30.4 B) for the Project. Refer to the Planning Commission staff report and Minutes for details (Attachments 4 and 5, respectively). On December 19, 2011, the law firm of Adams, Broadwell, Joseph and Cardozo (Adams Broadwell) filed an appeal of the Planning Commission's certification of the EIR and related Project approvals on behalf of the first appellant, Redwood City Citizens for Responsible Development, which includes Vic Torreano, a resident of Redwood City, the San Mateo County Building and Construction Trades Council and their members and families who reside, work and/or recreate in Redwood City (Attachment 2). On December 20, 2011, Diana Reddy filed an appeal of the same Planning Commission actions on behalf of the second appellant, Redwood City Local Housing Committee (Attachment 3). ANALYSIS I. Basis of First Appellant Appeal General CEQA Claims The December 19, 2011 Adams Broadwell appeal letter is comprised of the appellant's October 26 Draft EIR comment letter (Letter 1), December 13 Final EIR comment letter (Letter 2) and a copy of email correspondence between Robyn C. Puchia of the Adams Broadwell law firm and the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) (Letter 3) that the Planning Commission received and considered prior to rendering a decision on the Project (Attachment 2). As described in the appeal cover letter, the first appellant contends generally that the City failed to: • Comply with the requirements of CEQA to prepare a legally adequate EIR for the P roj ect. • Include in the EIR an accurate description of the environmental setting and an analysis of all project impacts and feasible mitigation measures. • Provide good faith, reasoned responses to their comments. • Ensure that the Project approvals provide good jobs and affordable housing in Redwood City. Based on these contentions, the first appellant further contends that the City must revise and recirculate the Draft EIR for an additional round of public review and comments.