|
8.A. - Page 2
<br />deficiencies that were identified. Those two deficiencies (both of which were minor in
<br />scope) have been remedied in the RFEIR, to the satisfaction of the Planning
<br />Commission; however, the RFEIR and associated project are now the subject of cross-
<br />appeals. In addition to its consideration of the RFEIR, the Council is now considering
<br />the underlying development project itself for the first time.
<br />In 1988, the City Council established a policy that an EIR, including all necessary
<br />technical studies (i.e., geotechnical, hydrology/drainage, biology, arborist, and traffic
<br />reports), be prepared prior to any new development of vacant parcels in the subject
<br />area, or roadway improvements on Laurel Way. The City had concerns about the
<br />substandard street, the steep and narrow lots, the potential loss of existing vegetation,
<br />slope stability, drainage, grading, poor emergency vehicle access, and other issues.
<br />The City required a comprehensive approach in order to evaluate the environmental
<br />issues associated with the any further development on Laurel Way, with the goal of
<br />establishing development guidelines that relate to this unique environmental context.
<br />The City wished to avoid "piecemeal development" of an area with complex planning,
<br />environmental, and engineering -related issues. The City Council reaffirmed this policy in
<br />2000.2 (Attachment 2)
<br />Please refer to the March 26, 2013 Report to the Redwood City Planning Commission
<br />from Planning Staff (Attachment 3) for further detailed discussion of the history of the
<br />current application and the lengthy process leading up to the preparation of the RFEIR,
<br />including the CEQA and Project resolutions. This current proposal, with slight
<br />modifications, has been under review by the City since 2007.
<br />ANALYSIS
<br />Save Laurel Way's Appeal
<br />The appeal filed by SLW raises multiple arguments broadly challenging both the
<br />certification of the RFEIR as well as the approval of the project on its merits (Attachment
<br />4). With respect to the RFEIR, SLW contends that it does not adequately analyze
<br />issues relating to General Plan consistency, slope stability, aesthetics, air quality,
<br />biological resources, noise, traffic, and cumulative impacts, that it improperly defers the
<br />development of mitigation measures, that it does not adequately describe the project,
<br />and that it needs to be recirculated. As to the merits of the project, SLW contends that
<br />the project is inconsistent with the City's 2010 General Plan, including stream and
<br />wetland protection policies, open space and habitat protection policies, hillside
<br />protection policies, stormwater treatment policies, public safety policies, and floor area
<br />ratios, and that the project is also inconsistent with the City's Zoning Ordinance. SLW
<br />also contends that the 1926 Subdivision Map that created the lots is not legally valid
<br />under current standards, argues that the City should require the applicants to apply for
<br />certificates of compliance, and suggests that some of the lots should not be treated as
<br />separate lots or should be merged. Finally, SLW argues that the limitations the
<br />Planning Commission placed on home sizes are unenforceable because the applicant
<br />can later apply to amend the Planned Development Permit.
<br />2 This policy does not restrict additions or modifications to existing homes on Laurel Way. It only pertains
<br />to remaining vacant lots in a defined area on Laurel Way.
<br />Page 2 of 12
<br />
|