AgdaPkt 2013-09-23 Closed and Regular

Browse Search

_ 7 8.A. - Page 397 N. is Page 3 1.AW FIRM I. I. 1' SMW complained that there would be insufficient time for public comment on the Final EIR before a February 26, 2013 hearing. In fact, the hearing has been postponed for other reasons and is now scheduled for March 26, 2013, which is forty nine (49) days after the Final EIR was released on February 5, 2013. This provides more than the forty-five (45) days requested for public review and is ample time to review and consider the relatively minor changes made to this Final En The City's adoption of a new General Plan has been incorporated into the Final EIR, and pursuant to the explanation above, does not constitute a circumstance requiring recirculation - The Final EIR explains that "The Redwood City General Plan was updated in October 2010. The updated General Plan has been reviewed and the project is consistent with the updated General Plan. References to the General Plan were revised to reflect the October 2010 update." p. 4-1. There is no evidence to suggest that the adoption of a new General Pian would exacerbate or create environmental impacts. Similarly, de minimus changes to the environment surrounding the Project site do not warrant recirculation. First, it is elementary that CEQA does not require an analysis Of the environment on the project. To require an analysis of the environment's impact on the project would "turn[] CEQA upside down." South Orange County Wastewater Authority v City of Dana Point (2011) 196 Cal.AppAth 1604, 1615. Moreover, -the possible addition of two unrelated residences to the existing, developed residential neighborhood does not change the cumulative impacts analysis for the Project. The analysis discussed hundreds of proposed new residences and hundreds of thousands of square feet of other proposed land uses and properly determined that the cumulative impact of 18 .new houses on Laurel Way would be less than significant. The new Project has only 16 new houses, but the cumulative impact analysis does not change: the sixteen new Project houses and two other possible houses (at 3718 and 3724 Laurel Way, as mentioned in the letter) for a total of 18 new houses on Laurel Way would have no significant cumulative impact. Finally, SMW claims that the City must now re -re -verify that LWN has the authority to pursue the Project on behalf of its members. In response to public comment, the City has already required the members of LWN to re -verify that the LWN has authority to pursue the project on their behalf. The members of LWN have done so; submitting signed statements attesting to the authority of LWN. SMW purports to have conducted a graphological analysis of the signatures submitted and argues that these signatures may not be valid. But, SMW provides no credentials as to its experience in this field. Handwriting analyses are notoriously inaccurate—even analyses by trained graphologists are routinely discredited as "pseudo science." Ironically, SMW's letter itself employs an "electronic" signature while casting doubt on the use of such technology by LW.N. There is no legitimate issue as to the LWJV's authority to pursue and obtain these project approvals. More importantly, SMW did not identify any member of LWN who challenges the authority of LWN to act on its behalf. This is because there are no such members. Rather, the members of LWJV are members of the joint venture for the sole purpose of this environmental {2359-0002!0030571 1;2}