AgdaPkt 2012-09-10 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

8.A. - Page 90 of the 5ettlement Agre�ment between McGowan Developmen#, F'rien�s of Cordilleras Creek and Finger Avenue Pride Committe� (collectively "�riends"} and the City of R�dwoad City. + 4n June 19, 2412, th� Planning Commission held a public hearing, cansidered public input, recommended City Co�ancil c�rtification of the Final Ef R and, recommended that the City Council strangly consider appraval of the EfR's environmentally superior project alternative described fn th� Draft EIR, pages 161-163. The alternative is entitled 'Project Alternative with 25 F'oot Creek Setback'. The Planning Commission aiso recommended the following: � That no additional increase in the sizel square footage of the residences on Lots 1-4 be allowed. � That no decrease in frant yard setbacks for l�at �-4 garages {driveway aprans) be allowed. • That no additional tree removals oth�r than those (10 trees) already proposed for removal by the Project applicant b� allowed. Such limikations would eliminate any unin#ended consequences that a project redesign might have on existing project site trees (i.e. the removal af a 37.9-inch Coastal Redwoad (Tree #35)) andlor driveway apron parking, The l.ot 1-4 residences would alsa be reduc�d in sizelmassi�g with implementat�on of the Planning Commission's recommendatio�. As such, staff proposes that these limitations b� included as additional project conditians of appro�al as pravided in Attachments 2 and 3. The Project appficant also agreed to an additional Candition of Appro�al to provide a pubfic access easement over the Project's proposed private roadway. ANALY5IS En�ironmental Imqact Report In their recommendation to certify the EIR, the Planning Commission determined that the EIR compl�es with the requirements of CEQA, is legally adequate and prouides an accurate description of the en�ironmental setting and analysis of the pat�ntial impacts of the Project and the variaus alternatives, and feasib�e mitigation measures, an� recommended that the City Council certify it. David Powers and Associates, the City's environmental consultant, working with its sub- consultants, determined that no new impacts were ident�fied by the letters and emails submitted before the Planning Commission hearing and, therefore, there is nv need to re�ise and r��circufate the EIR. The comments do not Entroduce new information about a n�w significant impact or a substantFal increase in se�erity of the impacts disclosed in the Draft and Final EIR. Refer to attached cammunity emails and letters and Da�id Powers and Associates summary response memo (Attachments 5 and G). The EIR's certification would be based on the findings as set forth in Attachment 1._