Reso25 16295 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

50 Street/Franklin Street extension; 10 along James Street). These trees would include tree grates as specified in the DTPP. 16 trees would be planted in the proposed open space, including adjacent to the creek restoration area. The remaining approximately 16 new trees would be planted as part of the creek restoration (Plan Sheets L0.03, L1.01, and L3.01, 6/11/24). The arborist report prepared for the Commercial Component by H. T. Harvey & Associates (“901 El Camino Real Project, Redwood City, Arborist Report,” 10/7/24, p. 7) assessed 62 trees, including the 33 trees identified on site and the additional 29 trees on the adjacent Joint Powers Board (JPB) parking lot, in City right-of-way areas, and along a portion of the El Camino Real median parallel to the project component frontage. The 62 trees comprise 18 species, the most common of which is crepe myrtle. The arborist report determined none of the surveyed trees qualify as heritage trees, but 15 of the trees meet the City’s criteria for “protected” trees.9 Of the 15 protected trees, the Commercial Component proposes to protect 5 trees in place and remove the 10 remaining protected trees (Plan Sheet L0.03). Tree protection fencing and other measures would be implemented during construction to protect the trees that would be preserved (Plan Sheet L0.03). The Commercial Component does not propose to remove any of the 14 trees identified by the arborist report and tree disposition plan (Plan Sheet L0.03) as being 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 Commercial Component, requires that any project involving tree removal complete the application and review process specified in the City’s Tree Preservation Ordinance (Municipal Code Chapter 35). The City’s Tree Preservation Ordinance governs trees of any species that are “protected” and specifies that such protected trees may not be removed, destroyed, or disfigured without a permit. Implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-5 as a condition of approval 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 Commercial Component proposes one outdoor terrace on level 7, with roof garden planting areas and landscaping; the landscaping in the roof garden area would include a combination of sweet bay and paperbark trees, and a variety of understory plants (Plan Sheet L3.02; 6/11/24). 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 proposed 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 Commercial Component would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources. Therefore, the Commercial Component would be less than significant with mitigation. This Commercial 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 Commercial 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 Commercial Component site. Therefore, the Commercial Component would have no impact. This Commercial 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 Commercial Component or its site have been identified, (2) there are no potentially significant 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 9 Per the Redwood City Tree Ordinance, all trees, defined as having a circumference of 38 inches or more (12” diameter) when measured between 6 and 36 inches above ground level, that are located on private property and are part of a planned or approved commercial development in Redwood City are “protected.” ATTY/RESO.0028/CC RESO CEQA GUIDLINES (920 SHASTA) - EXHIBIT A REV: 04-22-25 VR Page 50 of 148