|
8.A. - Page 335
<br /> Lyncn's�ine�s rar more consistent with the break in slope th$t marks�.hs botu�dary between the creek chanuel
<br /> and the surrounding land. I think this is pretiy clear. In fact, �don't understand how Nlr. Chang c,ta�ld rational�ze
<br /> or justify accepting the �pplica.nt's TOB for t13e stormwater setback, except tp succumb ta polit�cal pressure. �Ve
<br /> a]so kn;ow t�at jvst a coupie ofmanths prior, as documented in the xecard,Mr. Chang arderect Impact Sci,ences,
<br /> the co�sultant wrfting the Initial 5tudy for the project, to cha.nge their�indings of significant impacts and
<br /> remove associateti mitagations that Mr.McGowan c�id nat want to perfarm,in order for the project to move
<br /> forward to the Caxnmission without an ETR.
<br /> The net Iot sizes listed in Tab1e 2 of the staffreport are ba,sed on the applicar�t's TOB location used for defining
<br /> the setback,nat the City Engineer's, So here's#he kicker;based on wha#we can pul! together, i�F you
<br /> recomputed net Iat area{buildiz�g site area)using Mr. I,ynch's line, it looks like you might drop below 54,00(?
<br /> square feet or sufF�cient b�ilding site area to support nine homes. If you thaught the cree�C TQB battle was about
<br /> the Storm�vater Ordinauce, t�inlc a�gazn,—its' about cabbling together enough ]ana#o fi#9 iats onto this property.
<br /> Ir�owr DEIR comments,we asked the City to require a ful� su.rvey of the creek and topographic r,anaitions
<br /> around fhe site, and fu11y relate the loca�,an of the creek to knpwn benchmazks th$t can be verifiad on tl��VT'M,
<br /> A topographic survey extending 10�° beyvnd the project site is a requirement of Redwood City Gode 30.35H1.
<br /> ThE City has nvt responded to that request. A coancern we'vo voiced is whether the creek itsclf is Iocated
<br /> acc�arately witlzin the lot linss. `l�o� cazi read the recard on this question as same things don=t make sense.A
<br /> valid, objecnvely defined �rzap of the creek channel is essentiai to�et this nght.
<br /> Ta approve this project as a�esigned, you therefore I�ave to agprove consiruction of a substandard roaa,and
<br /> pretend that the cre�k channeI top]ies below the 1 Qp-year flood surface, wh3iah itseZf has been detez�nined by
<br /> FEMA to occur within th�e Cordilleras Creek channel at this location—and it still barely makes it under the Iine.
<br /> This malces no sense. Yet Mr. McGawan (and staff as�ris suiro�ate at tl�is point)want to convince you that such
<br /> approval is warrantsd and necessary to preserve ihe developer's substa�tial property rights, That is ane of the
<br /> findings you are�sked ta maks to approve this PD. You ca�anot make this �rnding because he does not have this
<br /> right. �.n its Feb.10, 2009 staffareport to the Commi�sian, Staff advised yau that yau could not make th�findings
<br /> to grant the roadway exception.Notl2ing has changed. The road is essentially tl�e same,the site isn't ariy znore
<br /> a�r+kward than it was, and Mr.McGawan hasn't o�tained any additional rights, Furthermore,a]terxiatives
<br /> evalua.tfixl in the ETR sho�r t}Fat the site can be developed without requirit�g a•substandard road. �ta�s
<br /> evaluation in 2009 was correct, and there is no basis in fact to chan�e tI�ose findi,ngs. With aI1 due respect to the
<br /> staf�r�pQrt,you can't just malce this stuff up without substantial evidence ta srapport yaur conclusions.
<br /> Yqu also have to approve a PD Pennit that finds that ti�e de�veIopment is in harmony with the sunro�nc�Zng
<br /> neighborhaaa� az�a meets#.he objectives of a Plaiwed DeveIopmen� You can't ar�aalc�rhose find�ngs either.
<br /> I want to a.�so rnake sure ta mcntion tl�at one af owr new Genexa!Plan Policies for Historic Influe�ice I,ow
<br /> Density Residential N�ighborhoods(PoIicy BE S.I) states the following:
<br /> "Require that new cx�nstruction, additaox�,r�ovations, and infrl� devElc►pment be sensative to neighl�arhoad
<br /> eonte�t,historic developnaent patterns, and I�uilding farm and scale (for exarnple, se�ond sto�ies, c�etached
<br /> garages, setbacks, enhancec� front entrances}" [Emphasis added�.
<br /> This project is hardly s�sitive to che neighborhaad con�ext; that is clear in the visua�iza.tiQns we've�ravided.
<br /> Tl�e di�fieulty Mz�. McGowan has had in gettang a project built here has be�n his insistence on stuffing l 0
<br /> pou¢ids of potataes into a S-p�tuad sack. This is ob�+ious w�etx you lao�at the project design and study t�e lang
<br /> and tortuous p�th of this project. We lmow a sensitive and sensible project can be built here and we want ta
<br /> work with the City and Mr.McGov�rat�to�makc it happez�. We've identified features of a project that we wouJd
<br /> support. We've presented an alternative PD concept that pu�s nine dwelling units on the site(8 Iots),provides a
<br /> s
<br />
|