Laserfiche WebLink
8.A. - Page 299 <br />8.A. - Page 57 <br />Appeal of the Redwood City Planning Comngssion's Certification of the FMA] F]R <br />August 31, 2010 <br />Page 4 of 8 <br />Glenwood Aveme and the creek that runs through both through Laurel Way, and <br />Glenwtiod. We foil that it is simply not possible for the Commission to state <br />with sufCcient comfdem that mitigation Mosinee will red= the envie n mental <br />impacts to an insignificant level when it lacks such critical evidwce as bank <br />e><~o don studies and geotechnical investigations. <br />While we understand that some of these reports are related to the design of <br />specific housing sites, we believe that the fragile ooWftion of this rural area, its <br />=ft=aely steep topography, and unchartered development compels the <br />Commission to comsider such infotznatiom in order to analyze the BM, accurately <br />assess its limitations and the Asks of this proposed project. (Absent this <br />knowledge, the Commission's caaclusiaa that ,no significant impact,, will result <br />from the project clearly lacks key supporting evidence and a factual basis.) We <br />do not believe that this "cart before the home" approach to the project's evaluation <br />was intended by the Commission as the Commissioners themse]ves expressed <br />interest in reviewing these reports at the August 24th hearing. <br />The F.fTQt does not adequately address what the CBQA BnvhOunental Checklist <br />describes as "degradation of the existing visual character or duality of the site and <br />its surroundings„ and "substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista." The <br />Commission finds that measures such as the planting of small replacement trace <br />and vegetation will sufficiently mitigate the loss of five acres of open spam, <br />ninety-one mature trees, naturally4mmed waterways and other aspects of this <br />scenic area. (See e.g., MR, R'irtigntion Measure Biology -16) However, the <br />project area has been mainly untouched for ova So years (the trees form a canopy <br />over a curving dirt road), and no amount of aesthetic mitigation will reveres what <br />affected residents have refetued to (in comments before tine Commission) as "strip <br />minima" of the area. <br />Tlm MM Bready underestimates the amount of conmte and other unsightly <br />materials that will. be visible frown a project of this size and Steepness, as well as <br />the lack of hillside that will be available fbr any planting due to the <br />dispx%MrtioAatcly large square footage per house that is proposed. (Sea a.g., <br />Aesthetic Nlidgation Measures 1-4 calling far Iandmgdng plans, stow lighting <br />plans and vegetation ening) The Commissioners' stated intention to waft for <br />landscaping and other antbetio-related playas at the time of permit approval is <br />hunter to the CBQA's very purpose, Le., to provemt the degradation of the visual <br />