AgdaPkt 2013-09-23 Closed and Regular

Browse Search

8.A. - Page 388 8.A. - Page 146 August 15, 2011 Bear Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council. 1 respectftilly request that you overturn the Planning Commission's certification of the Laurel Way EIR on the grounds that it fails to meet CEQA requirements. Listed below are just a few of my many concerns about the adequacy of the RIR. THE MAL BIR FAILS TO ADOQUATELY CONSIDER CHALLENGES & COIF WNTS TO THE DEUL At the Planning Commission hearing on April 7, 2010 to consider the Dram SIR (and at the hearing on August 24, 2010 to consider the Final EIR), both Planning Commission members and community members asked for additional Information and asked questions in Ietters, e-mails, and In public meetings which were not adequately answered ( in some cases, not answered at all). Council members and neighbors also raised (in letters, email, and public testimony) concerns about inadequades in the draft EIR and apparent risks from the projea Despite all this communication, very few changes were made in the FBI& at bears repeating that the most significant change in the Final EIR was the insertion of area house size comparisions at Appendix C, which the staff report of August 8, 2011 points out were wholly Incorrect.) Included among the many significant challenges were the foliowing: I. BIOLOGY (please see attached reference from BIR reports) + The biological reports claim, Incorrectly, that serpentine soils do NOT occur on the site. The biological reports base (in part) their conclusions about the non- existence of certain rare plants [as well as Insects] on their incorrect claims of the non-existence of serpentine soils o The biological reports rely on out -dated information about serpentine obligate plants. Current scholarship disputes these claims. e The fieldwork was of too short a duration for a site which (although small) has a very vaiiable terrain and underlying nock formations. o The main field work was done in only 2 days.