Laserfiche WebLink
8.A. - Page 298 <br />&A. - Page 56 <br />Appeal of the Redwood Coity Plarmmg Commission's Certification of the Final ER <br />August 31, 2414 <br />Pop 3 -of 8 <br />dw proposed houses were significantly larger than houses in the area, would be reinstated. No <br />discussion owned as to how dais inaccuraw data or tits new conchtslons found than way into the <br />FEM or whether the significance of this e= (albr.it cort+ected) redid on the awa racy or <br />potential bias in the remainder of the FE.Tat. It should also be noted dug the mor was brought to <br />the Commission's atftfM by an affected horneoww. <br />Based on the comments and questions posed by the Commission=, they did not appear to agree <br />on the impact of their blain ret approval of the F= and mitigation maria= on future <br />consideration of the Planned Development Permit application. While we apprealate the fact that <br />certification of the FEDI with no rxcepadw or jlredings of significant impact reuders moot the <br />evaluation of Messer-impcaet alternatives at this time (R.csolutiou, p. 3), the Canandmion may iaot <br />have appreciated that its broad brush approval wood matte it difficult to appmve anything but <br />the project, in its current overlarge format. with an its devastating impact. We do not believe <br />this is a result the Commission intended. <br />REASONS FOR APPEAL: <br />We believe the Planning Commission's decision to certify the Fina) Eaavi ronmenW Impact <br />Report (FMR) was inceneet and haat its findings that the proposed project will result in `less <br />Haan significant environmental impacts" across all categades -- aestbcde impact, biological <br />imFac. hydrology. geological impact, air quality, traffic and noise -- we not supported by <br />substantial evidence in the record. We further believe that the record demonstrates rice project's <br />significant and devastating environmental impact and that comments of the community and <br />information submitted have not been taken into comicderation by the Commission. our specific <br />reasons for appeal are summarized as follows: <br />According to Geology and Hydrology reports provided by the City, several <br />critical measures necessary to evaluate the environmental impact of the project <br />have not yet been undwTaken. These include grading and improvement plans, a <br />detailed Erosion Control Plan, a Stormweter Pollution Prevention Plan, a Spfil <br />Contingency and Countemseaasuras Phil, an evaluation of aro existing landslide on <br />Lots 3 and 4, and other critical tasks such as wmporvy excavation support pietas, <br />detailed foazndation explorations and geotechnical investigations on each lot, <br />(See FM, Appendix A: Mitigation Monitom* and Reporting Program; <br />Resolution, Exba'bit A, pp. 11-20) Many comments on the DEAR noted serious <br />concerns as to the proposed grading and excavations that would destabilize the <br />hillside (which is divided by the undeveloped portion of Laurel Way). This <br />would seriously impact and endanger not only the two a fisting residences on the <br />unpaved portion of Laurel Way, but the adjacent downhill residences on <br />