Reso24 16254 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

under Chapter 29 of the Municipal Code. Compliance with the Tree Preservation Ordinance and Mitigation Measure 15-4 were identified to reduce impacts related to tree removal to a less than significant impact. The DTPP Plan-Wide Amendments program SEIR (p. 15-16) concurred with the DTPP EIR conclusion that the impacts would be less than significant with migration and restated former Mitigation Measure 15-4 as Mitigation Measure BIO-5. According to the arborist report prepared for the project component by Arbor Resources (“Tree Survey Report – 1900 Broadway, Redwood City, CA,” 5/10/21, p. 2) and the project component’s landscape tree disposition plan (Plan Sheet T1, 11/9/23), there are 25 trees onsite,8 all of which the project component proposes to remove: four trees along Broadway (two Flowering pear, two Japanese black pine), and three trees along Main Street (two Japanese black pine, one Japanese loquat), and six trees along Spring Street (five Shamel ash, one Japanese black pine), plus 12 more trees on the Spring/Marshall Parklet (one Crape myrtle, three Shamel ash, seven Coast redwood, one Flowering pear). The project component proposes to replace these trees with six Shamel Ash along Broadway, six Trident Maple along Marshall Street, eight Trident Maple along Walnut Street, and eight Red Oak along Main Street (Plan Sheet L1, 11/9/23). The project component would include tree guards, as appropriate, and tree grates as specified in the DTPP. In addition to the required street trees, as a condition of approval the City is requiring tree replacement mitigation at a 4:1 ratio for the removal of the seven Coast redwood trees with 28 24-inch box trees to be planted in the downtown in the vicinity of the project. Because the arborist report indicates that eight trees are considered street trees and 19 trees (including three of the “street trees”) would be regulated by City Code due to their trunk diameters, their proposed removal is subject to the Municipal Code Chapter 29, which regulates street trees (including their removal) within public rights-of-way. DTPP Mitigation Measure 15-4 would mitigate the potential impact on trees to a less-than-significant level. DTPP Plan- Wide Amendments program SEIR Mitigation Measure BIO-5 restates DTPP EIR Mitigation Measure 15-4, with minor text revisions (“clarifying amendments”). This updated mitigation measure, which shall be required as a condition of approval for the project component, would reduce the potential impacts of the project component related to conflict with local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources to a less-than-significant level. In addition, the project component proposes three outdoor terraces and one balcony (two terraces and one balcony on level 4 and one terrace on level 7), plus the Commons at ground level at the corner of Main Street and Broadway; the landscaping is conceptually identified by use of planters as indicated in the plans (Plan Sheets A5, L1, L2, L3, and L4; 11/9/23). As a standard condition of project approval, any landscape irrigation system would conform to the California Water-Efficient Landscape Ordinance (AB 1881) and Model Water Efficiency Landscape Ordinance requirements, including a drip or other point-source irrigation systems for the shrubs/groundcover areas and a bubbler irrigation system for trees. The project landscape plans are subject to City review and approval under the DTPP standards and guidelines, as well as under standard City review procedures, including Chapter 29 of the Municipal Code (regarding street trees). Based on the project details and requirements described in this item (e), the project component would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources. Therefore, the 1900 Broadway project component would be less than significant with mitigation. This project component is consistent with the analysis in the EIR/SEIR because it would not create new impacts or increase impacts and there is no new information of substantial importance for CEQA purposes. f. Neither the DTPP Final EIR or the SEIR discussed this impact because no adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan applies to the DTPP area. The same is true today. For this reason, the project component would not conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an adverse effect on vegetation or wildlife; nor would it conflict with an adopted habitat conservation plan. No habitat conservation plan applies to the project component site. Also see item (e) above. Therefore, the 1900 Broadway project component would have no impact. This project component is consistent with the analysis in the EIR/SEIR because it would not create new impacts or increase impacts and there is no new information of substantial importance for CEQA purposes. CONCLUSION With regards to the issue area of Biological Resources, the following findings can be made: (1) no peculiar impacts to the 1900 Broadway project component or its site have been identified, (2) there are no potentially significant effects or off-site and/or cumulative impacts which were not discussed by the EIR/SEIR, (3) no substantial new information has been identified which results in an impact which is more severe than anticipated by the EIR/SEIR, and (4) feasible mitigation measures contained within the EIR/SEIR would apply to the project component specific impacts rendering 8 The arborist also identifies an additional nine trees on properties east of Walnut Street, beyond the project component boundaries but referred to by the arborist as the “project area.” ATTY/RESO.0070/CC RESO 1900 BROADWAY (CEQA) - EXHIBIT 1 - CEQA CONSISTENCY CHECK LIST REV: 10-23-24 VR Page 45 of 135