AgdaPkt 2013-09-23 Closed and Regular

Browse Search

8.A. - Page 297 S.A. - Page 55 Appeal of the Redwood City Planning CQmmisdcmIs Certification of the Firul BM August 31, 2010 Page 2 of 8 REVlE W OF RECORD AND PROCEEDINGS: 11998, the City Council adopted a policy that on Environmental Impact Report be prepared PAW to any new development of vacant parcels or roadway improvements on Laurel Way. The City expressed concerns for the area including the sumpms and narrowness of the lots, shape stability, drainage, grading and other issues. Total project size is 5.1 acres. In 2007,16 owners of lots i» the project site formed a joint venture for purposes of submitting a Planned Development proposal to the City. The Planning Commission held an ER scoping mooting on February 3, 2009, at which several neighboring residents expressed serious concerns about various impacts of the project on their homes and the project area. The City completed a Draft Environmental Impgct Report in February 2010 that purported to evaluate and address the enviraam=W impacts of the proposed project, a planned residential subdivision, to occur in two phases. Phase 1 would involve building a roadway over the curr o 104aot dirt road, r=oving forty-five =amre trees, insteIling drainage sites, modifymg/cmwi ling sewer and water services, redirecting water runoff towards a creek that runs through the prcJect site, and constructing retaining WADS in an attempt to contain erosion. Phase II would involve removal of another forty-six mature trees and construction of 18 large, multi -story new homes on the developed sites. The DER also outlined three development alternatives: "A - No Project," %-Reduced Floor Ares," and "C -Reduced Floor Area with Lot Mergar." (DEIR, sec. S: Altematives to the Project) The Commission bold a hearing on Aptil 6, 2010 to discuss the Draft BUL Numerous comments (written and oral) were submitted by affected neighbors of the potential project, including the two existing homemm ars of the undeveloped portion of Laurel Way, all raising significant coucerms about the potential damage to the area, unsupportable traffic conditions, danger of property and personal damage from lanislides, and the loss of vegetation, habitat and wildlife. (See FI R, sec. a. Comments and Responses) On August 18, 2010, the Planning Staff ismed the FSK which was virtually identical to the Draft EIR with only minor revisions, For example, the FM provided the City°s definition of a mature tire; (2) offered to place a stop sign at the entrance to Lama] Way, and (3) required the applicant to obtain it sewer main rapacity analysis. More sig cantly, the FM contained new data OMM Appendix C) pig to show the average size of existing housing in the project area as being suddenly "substantially similar" to the vary large size of the hogs proposed for the project (FSK sec. 3: Revisions and Brrata, pp. 3-1 and 3-5)_ At the hearing on August 24th, community members and area property owners again expressed their deep corrretn that the FOR Gild not capture the £rrll impact that the project would cause and that the nd igadon meaty ryes were both unwieldy and unlikely to rnitigate ever the risks that had been WeWhed. Tbc commenters also noted tbA none of their concerns had resulted in changes to the DM3L Curiously, in their presentation of the FEK the 13IR preparers srumnarily noted that the new data on wasting house sues were being withdrawn from the FUR and that original language itt the DEEL stating that