Laserfiche WebLink
8.A. - Page 3 <br />The City believes that the RFEIR is adequate in all respects and was not required to be <br />recirculated. It should be stressed that the RFEIR's technical analyses (including <br />geotechnical, soils, and hydrologic issues) are based upon multiple expert studies, each <br />of which were independently peer reviewed by subconsultants retained by the City's <br />independent EIR consultant. This peer review was not a "rubber stamp" but rather <br />involved a detailed critical back and forth process before ultimate conclusions were <br />reached. As a result of this process, and based upon careful analysis, the RFEIR <br />ultimately concluded that development of the project — even at the larger home sizes <br />proposed by the project — would not result in any significant environmental impacts, <br />including in the areas of slope stability and water quality. Despite extensive opportunity <br />to do so (the original Draft EIR reaching these conclusions having been circulated for <br />public review in early 2010), no credible expert analysis has been submitted by any <br />project opponent calling these conclusions into question. <br />Contrary to SLW's contentions, the RFEIR does not involve any deferral of mitigation <br />measures. While some of the specific details of the mitigation will be developed when <br />the homes are specifically designed, the mitigation measures identified in the RFEIR <br />comprehensively address and mandate all applicable requirements and have been <br />designed to ensure that mitigation will be implemented. Consistent with the direction <br />previously provided by the Council, the RFEIR deletes all language suggesting that <br />mitigation will only be carried out "to the extent feasible." SLW mischaracterizes the <br />prior direction of Council when it suggests that the RFEIR does not adequately follow <br />that direction. <br />As to SLW's question regarding who would be liable in the event of slope stability or <br />other issues, again, it should first be stressed that the RFEIR has determined, based <br />upon detailed expert analysis, that no such issues are anticipated. That being said, this <br />project (including the street) is wholly a private project for which the City would have no <br />liability. So long as a proposed private development complies with all applicable <br />engineering and other building standards, the City would play no further role in private <br />property issues relating to liability between neighbors. <br />As to SLW's contentions that the development is not consistent with the General Plan <br />and applicable zoning standards, staff notes that the Project site has a land use <br />designation of Residential — Low Density and has not been designated as open space. <br />As result, the study area has long been designated for exactly the type of low density <br />development as is contemplated by this project. <br />SLW also speculates that the lots are not legally valid and suggests that the City must <br />do its own research on this subject. The 1926 subdivision map which created these lots <br />is the same map which created all of the several hundred surrounding lots that have <br />since been developed, and in which many of the neighbors now opposing this project <br />now live. Staff does not believe that it can now be fairly contended that some or all of <br />these lots are not valid, or even that there should be further research into their validity. <br />Cases cited by legal counsel for SLW do not address a similar fact pattern. <br />Page 3 of 12 <br />