AgdaPkt 2009-08-03 spc, clsd and jnt

Browse Search

7A mi#igate the efFects to a poin# where cleariy no significant effect on the environment Page 6 would occur, and (2}there is no substantial evidence in light of the who�e record before fihe public agency fhat the project, as revised, may have a significant effect on the environment. The planning consultant prepared a Mitigated Negati�e Declaration/Initial Study for the project because #he Initial Study did not identify: 1} a new, una�oidable significant effec�; 2} a significant effect identified in the IS/MND that is more severe or extensive than discussed in the document; and 3)the proposed mitigation measures or prvject re�isions wouid not reduce po#entiai effects to a less-than-significant�e�el. The P[anning Commission agreed wi#h this recommendation and adopted the ISlMND. Please refer to the IS/MND under separate cover for more information. 3. By moving irr�medratety fo adopt fhe !S/N1ND, ff�e Corr�mrssion's Vice Chair, who suppor�ed fhe project, prevented fhe remainc�er of the Commrssron from considering a rr�ofian to deny the project af�he oufset. The Vrce Chair's action may have causecf one Cornmissioner fo vofe to aafopt the 1VtND simp�y to be abte fa move ahead to the nex� s�ep and vofe againsf fhe PD Permif. This argument is purefy speculafive and there is no evidence that the action of one Planning Commissioner influenced another Cammissioner to deny the project so as to rnove ahead and deny the PD and VTM. The Planning Commissioners have the responsibility to act independently weighing all the facts and public testimony submitted in the record. Appeal of the denial of the Planned De�elopment Permit and Vesting Tentative Map The project applicant is appealing the denial of the Planned Develvpment Permit and the Vesfiing Tentative Map.According to�he applicant the majority of the commissioners did not reasonably and fully consider the record evidence and recommended findings that wouid ailow modifications of the 25 ft. creek se#back standard. In 2006, Redwood City esfiablished a comprehensive update to the Zoning�rdinance to address storm water quality. �n addition to establishing a 25 ft. creek setback standard, many other zoning criteria were introduced in�o the ordinance for the fiirst time, such as consideration of[mpervious surface coverage.The purpose of the code re�isions o�erall was to establish best management practices from a land use planning basis for controfling the rate and im�ra�ing the quality of storm water discharge. �'he creek setback standard of 25 feet was estab[ished to allow adequate biological filtration of surface ffows originating from a property. However, the code ailows other means for accomplishing the same resuit, and allows reduced se�backs based on findings related to protection of the creek's habitafi and banks while maintaining s#orm water quality though an engineered system. The creek sefiback was not established for any o�her purpose at that time. The Acting Community Development Director determined that a 15 foat setback from the top of creek bank was adequafie in this case (instead of a 25 ft setback) for the sake of storm wafer con#rol and believes that the developer's proposal meets the findings as set forth in the creek setback ordinance as summarized here: 1. Protection of Existing Riparian Habita#: There is some riparian habita#along the creek bank and#he proposed mitigation measures and conditions of approval wil! require that it be protected, supplemented or replaced as part of the individual developmenfi of the lots. 2. Creek Bank S�ability: The foundations of the new structure (pier/grade beam)