Laserfiche WebLink
8.A. - Page 301 <br />B.A. Page 59 <br />Appeal of do Redwood Cary Planning Cornmission's certificoce of the Final lIt <br />August 31.2010 <br />Page 8 of 8 <br />equipment. The HM summarily states that no rvesidests will be displaced as a <br />result of the PnojeM given the sheer size, length and close proximity of the pr+pject <br />to existing homes, tle conclusion simply begs credibility. Mr, Camnafssiods <br />blanket denial of the existence of any significant enw==tal impacts resulting <br />from tie proposed development gives the unfordtnate appeaxanoe of <br />sulavrdi>rating the property rights and itrterests of 1011$40M to YcrS, PrePUtY <br />awnets and residents of Redwood City to the deve elm. We, do = believe the <br />Commission intended such a result.) <br />In prior hearings, Commissioner (now Council Member) Seyben repeatedly noted <br />that under current zoning requirements, the steeply sloped lots would be <br />designated RH-10 or even RH 25, which cantles with it special developaneut and <br />buildout restrictions.' Natber the FEBt nor the Commission has addressed the <br />enviroamntal impacts of the project in ft context of their actual coning <br />designations (although the staff report has included such restrictions for <br />comparison purposes)• rt seems to us that the EUVs failure to mice into account <br />that the APplicent intends to build houses on 7,203 -square -foot lots that the City <br />would narmallp require to be 30,000 square feet is critical. <br />As a general matador, the Kdgation Measures, and the Mitigation Monitoring and <br />Reporting Plan (while reflecting some of the outsized risks of the proposed <br />project) are far too detailed and ambitious for effective monitoring and <br />enforcement to occur. See PF1R, Appendix A: Mitigation Monitoring and <br />Rtpotring Program. As stated above, they also underes nu is the amount or <br />scope of corrective action that would be required to counteract the destructive, <br />effects of the projer.t.3 The FEM does not mention floe added complication of <br />monitoring a major sttm development and then 18 building projects being <br />separately undeRaken by numerous individual owrtera. Other examples of the <br />lads of feasibility or iniad quacy of proposed mitigation measures include: (a) the <br />a proposal to mitigate the effeets of a 15% in=ease in traffic during the <br />construction period by requiring "preparation of a parking plan and/or carpool <br />Y Ste, C..." Minutes, Planning COMMissian ;fiat Meeft October, 7. 2007, pp 4-5 (C ore Saybert a*,W <br />whether t& project should andynvi d using RU -Io ac RH 20 toning msaactiow given the exnmdy steep nattim of <br />mwb Of the site. Sae also Misu:tes, Planaeag Commission your Meeting 3>t Zen* AdminisMor. June 5, 2008, <br />p. S. Judging froom the Rodwood City Zoning Map, it does appear dw a sipgkAnt pert of the developrtreat would <br />ba rm W at least RJi-10. <br />9 7M is not to say the MAW should not be ambitious; rogm, we belim the MMRP roflocts do disproportionate <br />else and complexity of tho project for this enviroamwally firag0e weL <br />