|
7.2.B. - Page 12
<br /> deficiencies that were identified. Those two deficiencies (both of which were minor in
<br /> scope) have been remedied in the RFEIR, to the satisfaction of the Planning
<br /> Commission; however, the RFEIR and associated project are now the subject of cross-
<br /> appeals. In addition to its consideration of the RFEIR, the Council is now considering
<br /> the underlying development project itself for the first time.
<br /> In 1988, the City Council established a policy that an EIR, including all necessary
<br /> technical studies (i.e., geotechnical, hydrology/drainage, biology, arborist, and traffic
<br /> reports), be prepared prior to any new development of vacant parcels in the subject
<br /> area, or roadway improvements on Laurel Way. The City had concerns about the
<br /> substandard street, the steep and narrow lots, the potential loss of existing vegetation,
<br /> slope stability, drainage, grading, poor emergency vehicle access, and other issues.
<br /> The City required a comprehensive approach in order to evaluate the environmental
<br /> issues associated with the any further development on Laurel Way, with the goal of
<br /> establishing development guidelines that relate to this unique environmental context.
<br /> The City wished to avoid "piecemeal development" of an area with complex planning,
<br /> environmental, and engineering-related issues. The City Council reaffirmed this policy in
<br /> 2000.2 (Attachment 2)
<br /> Please refer to the March 26, 2013 Report to the Redwood City Planning Commission
<br /> from Planning Staff (Attachment 3) for further detailed discussion of the history of the
<br /> current application and the lengthy process leading up to the preparation of the RFEIR,
<br /> including the CEQA and Project resolutions. This current proposal, with slight
<br /> modifications, has been under review by the City since 2007.
<br /> ANALYSIS
<br /> Save Laurel Way's Appeal
<br /> The appeal filed by SLW raises multiple arguments broadly challenging both the
<br /> certification of the RFEIR as well as the approval of the project on its merits (Attachment
<br /> 4). With respect to the RFEIR, SLW contends that it does not adequately analyze
<br /> issues relating to General Plan consistency, slope stability, aesthetics, air quality,
<br /> biological resources, noise, traffic, and cumulative impacts, that it improperly defers the
<br /> development of mitigation measures, that it does not adequately describe the project,
<br /> and that it needs to be recirculated. As to the merits of the project, SLW contends that
<br /> the project is inconsistent with the City's 2010 General Plan, including stream and
<br /> wetland protection policies, open space and habitat protection policies, hillside
<br /> protection policies, stormwater treatment policies, public safety policies, and floor area
<br /> ratios, and that the project is also inconsistent with the City's Zoning Ordinance. SLW
<br /> also contends that the 1926 Subdivision Map that created the lots is not legally valid
<br /> under current standards, argues that the City should require the applicants to apply for
<br /> certificates of compliance, and suggests that some of the lots should not be treated as
<br /> separate lots or should be merged. Finally, SLW argues that the limitations the
<br /> Planning Commission placed on home sizes are unenforceable because the applicant
<br /> can later apply to amend the Planned Development Permit.
<br /> Z This policy does not restrict additions or modifications to existing homes on Laurel Way. It only pertains
<br /> to remaining vacant lots in a defined area on Laurel Way.
<br /> Page 2 of 12
<br />
|