AgdaPkt 2013-09-23 Closed and Regular

Browse Search

8.A. - Page 247 B.A. - Page 5 o A list of persons, organizations, and public agencies commenting on the Draft EIR, • A list of the comments and recommendations received on the Draft EIR, • The responses of the lead agency to significant environmental points raised in the public review process, m Any other information, including revisions and errata, added by the Lead Agency. • Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) On August 24, 2010, the Planning Commission certified the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR), adopted Findings Concerning Mitigation Measures, and adopted a Mitigation and Monitoring Report Program for the proposed Laurel Way Project. Appeal On August 31, 2010, Carrie Simon (on behalf of the "Concemed Neighbors of Proposed Laurel Way Planned Development Projee) filed an appeal of the Planning Commission's action to certify the EIR. (Attachment 3) More specifically, the appellants dispute the Planning Commission's findings that the proposed project will result in less - than -significant environmental impacts across all categories (aesthetic impact, biological impact, hydrology, geological impact, air duality, traffic and noise). In response to these concerns, City staff have further reviewed the Final EIR, and have found that most of the document adequately analyzes the environmental impacts of the proposed development. As noted above, every significant engineering issue addressed in the Final EIR was peer reviewed, with significant discussions between the applicant's engineers and the EIR consultant's independent engineering experts. The Final EIR's analysis is the product of this exchange. Two Important problems have been identified in the Final EIR, which need to be fixed before the certification of the Final EIR may be upheld. First, the analysis of the various potential geology -related impacts (in chapter 3.5 of the Draft EIR) concludes that all potential geological impacts can be fully mitigated with implementation of specified mitigation measures. However, both of the mitigations measures relating to geology set forth in the Draft and Final EIR (Geology -1 and Geology -2) contain qualifying language, which states that these measures shall be Implemented "to the extent feasible." This language, taken by itself, could be interpreted to suggest that full mitigation may not be feasible. Staff believes that this qualification needs to be better explained in the EIR. An argument can be made that all geological mitigation measures are feasible from a technical perspective, but that there may be feasibility concerns relating to the cost of the measures. (For example, the applicant has stated that Alternative B is not feasible because the smaller homes would not support the cost of the mitigation measures, whereas the larger homes as proposed would cover that cost.) Staff is thus requesting that the Council send the Final EIR back to staff to work with the City's consultants to make sure that the EIR fully and clearly explains any cost -related feasibility concerns.