Laserfiche WebLink
7.A. - Page 24 <br /> Addendum No. 2 revisits the traffic analysis previously performed, which was based <br /> upon more intensive development plans. It found no new significant impacts or <br /> increases in severity to previously identified impacts. (See Addendum No. 2, p. 3-25 et <br /> seq.) Thus, Appellant's contentions regarding impacts to Bair Island Road, East <br /> Bayshore Road, and Whipple Avenue do not raise any CEQA issue, as any and all <br /> potentially significant impacts were previously addressed and disclosed, and there are <br /> no new impacts or increases in severity to any existing impact. <br /> I. Traffic Conqestion Issues Have Been Thorouqhly Analyzed <br /> Appellant's Position: Traffic at East Bayshore Road/Bair Island is deemed acceptable, <br /> but measurements are not included. (Appeal, pp. 7-8.) <br /> City's Response: As discussed above (relative to emergency access and conditions at <br /> Bair Island Road, East Bayshore Road, and Whipple Avenue), the traffic impacts were <br /> fully addressed in the EIR and Addenda No's. 1 and 2 review each of the roadway <br /> segments and intersections and finds that there are no new impacts or increases in <br /> severity to an existing impact. <br /> J. Historic and Architectural Matters <br /> Appellant's Position: Pete's Harbor is an historic resource that will be lost if the Project <br /> proceeds. (Appeal, p.15) <br /> City's Response: The prior iteration of the project would also have resulted in loss of <br /> live-aboard boat slips, removal of the restaurant, and architectural features which <br /> Appellant considers worthy of preservation. The site was not identified as a potentially <br /> historical resource in the EIR. (See Chapter 14.) The EIR, certified and never <br /> challenged, is irrefutably deemed valid. Moreover, Pete's Harbor is not considered an <br /> historic site under the City's Historic Preservation Ordinance (Chapter 40 of the <br /> Municipal Code); thus, the Ordinance is not applicable. In sum, there are no substantial <br /> changes, new significant information or circumstances that lead to a new environmental <br /> impact or increased severity of a previously identified impact. <br /> IV. Miscellaneous <br /> A. The City Has Complied with Public Notification Requirements <br /> Appellant's Position: Appellant "appeals the Matter based on all applicable arguments <br /> under sunshine, process and governance policies reflected in or supported by Access <br /> Laws of Redwood City, San Mateo County and/or California ...." (Appeal, p. 9.) <br /> Appellant seeks "to reserve" all arguments that notice was not properly provided with <br /> respect to the Architectural Review Board Hearing and the October 16, 2012 Planning <br /> Page 24 of 27 <br />