Laserfiche WebLink
Jeremy Davies, 36 Cinnamon Lane, RPV <br />Remarks to RPV City Council on responses to the FEIR for the proposed <br />Landslide Moratorium Ordinance Revisions — August 5, 2014 meeting <br />Mr. Mayor, Mayor Pro -Tem, Council Members and Staff <br />Thank you for the opportunity to emphasize two points regarding the FEIR. <br />1) Topical response Section 8.1a of the Hydrology and Drainage Section of the FEIR <br />states that the drainage system was designed for the full build out of all 111 lots, which <br />includes both the Monks lots and the remaining 31 lots. The FEIR also recognizes that <br />the roads are an integral part of the drainage system. The assertion is made that this <br />design was reviewed, approved and permitted by LA County. <br />Topical response Section 8.1c which includes the Access Roadways and Pavement <br />Integrity Section of the FEIR recognizes that the roadway system was originally designed <br />for the full build out of all 111 lots and was reviewed and approved by LA County. The <br />roadway system passes through zones 5 and 6, both active landslide areas which, <br />incidentally, had not been reactivated at the time of the supposed approved design for the <br />full build out. <br />In addition, the FEIR asserts that the streets were designed to accommodate the <br />envisioned loading, including construction vehicles associated with the construction of <br />the envisioned build out as originally reviewed and approved by the County of Los <br />Angeles. <br />On request the City was unable to provide any proof of the assertion regarding the design, <br />review, approval and permitting by LA County for the full build out of the 111 lots. <br />CEQA section 15384 requires substantial evidence that relevant information is provided <br />to support a conclusion. The conclusions contained in Sections 8.1 a and 8.1 c of the FEIR <br />are of major importance to the integrity of the FEIR. The FEIR fails on this count. <br />In responding to the 35 public comment letters the FEIR extensively uses the <br />unsubstantiated assertions contained in these two Sections. The Responses rely on <br />Section 8. la 110 times and on Section 8.1c 35 times to justify their conclusions and <br />responses to the public comments. In addition, in the Responses to the oral comments <br />made at the City Council Public Hearing of November 7, 2012 these unsubstantiated <br />assertions are used a further 9 times. <br />Clearly the FEIR fails CEQA section 15384 in at least 154 responses to the public's <br />concerns. I urge you not to approve an FEIR based so extensively on unsubstantiated <br />assertions. <br />D MADE A PART OF TH <br />I ]NCIL MEETING OF -Z <br />OFFICE OF THE CITYJULhHK <br />CARLA MORREALE, CITY CLERK <br />