Laserfiche WebLink
8.A. - Page 302 <br />8.A. - Page 60 <br />Apped of the ttWwood City Platuiug Convr=ission's Certification of the FmER <br />August 3I, ?.010 <br />Page 7 of 8 <br />requinenmt for workers;" (b) Air Quality Midgsaan Measures include <br />`nnaintaining and properly twuing all constnictloa apapownt in accordance with <br />manufacturer's specifications and having a certified mechanic chock all <br />equ*ment prior to op=tion to determine if it is in proper condition; and watering <br />AIL exposed surfaces at least twice daily" (c) Biology Mitigation Measures nquim <br />a Qualified biologist surveying all rock outrrop, pings, rotten stunVs, decayed or <br />broken trains, etc. for bat raostin habitat; (d) Biology Mitigation Measures call <br />fbr partially removing hmbe and bark on potential sites, leaving them overnight, a <br />biologist M -inspecting them thin next day, ==W aWy before felling and <br />mmoving trees and only removing trees during mon-bang season (which does <br />nothing to mitigate the i1raparable loss of trains)_ Neitier the inadequacy nor the <br />readily apparent lack of feasibility of these and other mifigation measures was <br />addressed in the BIR or the findings of the Commissi(M. Far donee reasons, we <br />believe that tine Cnmmissioa's summary statement adMdq the 102AFtP as <br />"enforceable" and "capable of being fully it râ–ºpimented" is incorrect. <br />We believe that the letter and spirit of CEQA require more. <br />Finally. we ask that the City Council remand to the Planning Commissions considexation of the <br />historical context im which this subdivision was created. As previously stated in the Staff Report <br />and submitted comments. the County of San Mateo subdivided the existing lots in 1926. At that <br />time, this part of the Peninsula was often a place for small farms, orchards, cottage style homes. <br />and small second homes fur those looking for relief from San Francisco's summen. Sloped lots <br />of 7,000-8,000 square feet may have bean considered adequate for such uses, and dirt roads the <br />noaruL The County would not have foreseen building multi -story 5,2.00 square foot dwellings in <br />such an area. Neither would the County or planning authority have considered at that time the <br />environmental concerns atteadaut to major developments, such as excessive trafo, soil erosion <br />from deep per drilling, a new roadway, redirection of the eek, and a 30 -foot high retw=9 <br />walls.. The complexity, scope and size of the proposed project are diametrically opposed to the <br />historically limited intentions for the project site. (Note also that as tine areek's wader flow has <br />receded over the years, it is laiWY that at the time the subdivided lots wam significantly flatter <br />and mora stable as the creek banks would not have yet eroded.) Omission of this important <br />consideration from the PSR and the Commission's findings is, in our view, an important <br />oversight that must be oorrected, <br />