Laserfiche WebLink
7.2.B. - Page 13 <br /> The City believes that the RFEIR is adequate in all respects and was not required to be <br /> recirculated. It should be stressed that the RFEIR's technical analyses (including <br /> geotechnical, soils, and hydrologic issues) are based upon multiple expert studies, each <br /> of which were independently peer reviewed by subconsultants retained by the City's <br /> independent EIR consultant. This peer review was not a "rubber stamp" but rather <br /> involved a detailed critical back and forth process before ultimate conclusions were <br /> reached. As a result of this process, and based upon careful analysis, the RFEIR <br /> ultimately concluded that development of the project — even at the larger home sizes <br /> proposed by the project — would not result in any significant environmental impacts, <br /> including in the areas of slope stability and water quality. Despite extensive opportunity <br /> to do so (the original Draft EIR reaching these conclusions having been circulated for <br /> public review in early 2010), no credible expert analysis has been submitted by any <br /> project opponent calling these conclusions into question. <br /> Contrary to SLW's contentions, the RFEIR does not involve any deferral of mitigation <br /> measures. While some of the specific details of the mitigation will be developed when <br /> the homes are specifically designed, the mitigation measures identified in the RFEIR <br /> comprehensively address and mandate all applicable requirements and have been <br /> designed to ensure that mitigation will be implemented. Consistent with the direction <br /> previously provided by the Council, the RFEIR deletes all language suggesting that <br /> mitigation will only be carried out "to the extent feasible." SLW mischaracterizes the <br /> prior direction of Council when it suggests that the RFEIR does not adequately follow <br /> that direction. <br /> As to SLW's question regarding who would be liable in the event of slope stability or <br /> other issues, again, it should first be stressed that the RFEIR has determined, based <br /> upon detailed expert analysis, that no such issues are anticipated. That being said, this <br /> project (including the street) is wholly a private project for which the City would have no <br /> liability. So long as a proposed private development complies with all applicable <br /> engineering and other building standards, the City would play no further role in private <br /> property issues relating to liability between neighbors. <br /> As to SLW's contentions that the development is not consistent with the General Plan <br /> and applicable zoning standards, staff notes that the Project site has a land use <br /> designation of Residential — Low Density and has not been designated as open space. <br /> As result, the study area has long been designated for exactly the type of low density <br /> development as is contemplated by this project. <br /> SLW also speculates that the lots are not legally valid and suggests that the City must <br /> do its own research on this subject. The 1926 subdivision map which created these lots <br /> is the same map which created all of the several hundred surrounding lots that have <br /> since been developed, and in which many of the neighbors now opposing this project <br /> now live. Staff does not believe that it can now be fairly contended that some or all of <br /> these lots are not valid, or even that there should be further research into their validity. <br /> Cases cited by legal counsel for SLW do not address a similar fact pattern. <br /> Page 3 of 12 <br />