AgdaPkt 2013-09-23 Closed and Regular

Browse Search

8.A. - Page 309 B.A. - Page 67 Laurel Way Joint Venture Laurel Way Area Neighbors Association April 15, 7011 Page 6 Evert if the Council does not find any inadequacy in the EIR, it would be v'itilin the Council's discretion to send the EIR back to City staiipendiQ an actual project application. The City is wider no legal obligation to certify an EIR without a pending application. The Council could legitnnately decide that it is too abstract and uncertain to decide whether the EIR is adequate given the urertainties in what the Project as proposed will actually look like, I am sail reviewing this matter with City staff, and staff has not yet decided which option it wiU recommend to the Council. City staff believes that LWANA abe any other interested m,ernber of the public should, of course,, now raise any and all issues it has relating to the adequacy of the EIR for the Project as identified in the EIR. Certainly, if aW member of the public believes that there are flaws in the EIR they would like to see cured, it would be better to raise those flaws now. Staff is proceeding with scheduling the appeal before the Council because the Laurel Way Joint Venture has indicated that it no longer agrees to having that appeal further continued- Staff can ,justify continuance of that hearing only so long as all parties to that appeal agree. Should the Joint Venture change its mind and inform stafithat it is willing to c:omthw to defer' the hearing of the appeal until after it has submitted a specific project application, City staffwill consider a further continuance of this matter. Again, please advise me and/or City staffifyou have any questions or comments, or ifyou believe that theme are any factual inaccuracies in this letter. Vemy truly yours, JARVIS, PAY, DOPORTO & GIBSON, LLP Rick W. Jarvis Pamela Thompson, City Attorney, City of Redwood City Jill Ekas, Planning Manager, City of Redwood City Sailesh Mehra, Associate City Planner, City of Redwood City