Laserfiche WebLink
8.A. - Page 381 <br />8.A. - Page 130 <br />To: Honorable Mam City Council and Planning Commission Members <br />Regarding: Laurel Way Project and Appeal of Final EIR <br />From: Msti and Rick Ci'ninen <br />3666 Glenwood Av., Redwood City, 94062 <br />(650) 556-9523 <br />arguinon�pacbel !.net <br />As a family that has lived in this part of Redwood City for 13 yam we would like to <br />state that we ares to fire Laurel Way Project as well as ANY application for a <br />Planned Development Permit for this area. Furthemnore, we are in flavor of the Staff <br />Reports recommendation to grant the meal of the FEIR, which was certified by the <br />Planning Commission on August 24, 2010. We are in favor of pantmg this appeal not <br />only for the reasons listed in the report issued to you by your staffam 8!22!2011 but also <br />for multiple other issues that were detailed in the EIR appeal that we filed on August 31, <br />2010 following this certification and were not addressed directly is the staff wport. <br />First of all, we find it very concerning that there is as answer or mitigation mew= to <br />every potential significant =Pat that was stated in this report that reportedly can reduce <br />the eavialonmeantal impact to a less that siguifrcaat concern. These conclusions appear' to <br />be very subjective in nature since the phrase "to the extent feasible" is a reoccurring <br />theme duough out the mitigation measures in the MM This suggests that if the project <br />goes faaward that there a a very good likelihood that issues will rose that may not be <br />connectable to a less thaan significant ef%ect. This seems like a very irresponsible and <br />negligent appamach that a city would accept an BIR with these #ypes of statements as <br />adequate especially for a p inject of this size and steeliness. It is evident from the many <br />comments and concerns presented in this report from residents on Glenwood Ave, <br />Highland Ave, Vista Ct. and Laurel Way that this p qa t would present a, more than <br />significant effect on there neighborhood from concerns of aesthudc s, gootocbnical, <br />hydrology, traffic and noise. I find it difficult to swallow that there is not one negative <br />impact with regards to a project of this size and steep elevation. Even in the most perfect <br />scenarios, nothing is without risk or a negative impact. <br />We also agree with previous comments from Rick Jarvis that stated it is unusual for a city <br />to agree to certification of an EIR without a project on file. Since this development <br />occurred Stier our appeal, we also hope the Council will twice this new development into <br />consideration as fin her evidence that the EIR should not be certified at this time and the <br />applioamt should have a project on file befime this is donne. As of now we no longer have <br />an idea as to what is intended to be developed by the applicw in this arra Since three <br />lots whose owners did not join this application have been identified, the question now is <br />how much lead will be developed since it should be less than the 5.1 acres that has been <br />used in the past and will the applicant still try to &&clop 18 homes now can s smaller <br />amount of property? So as -to the staff report that suggests that now the effects might <br />actually be less since less lots no involved, we disagree d nae we feel the applicant will <br />lamely want to build the same amount of horses in a smaller area which should raise more <br />red flags or concerns. Me applicant has made It will known both in public comment and <br />