Laserfiche WebLink
8.A. - Page 390 <br />8.A. - Page 148 <br />o What will prevent drivers for using their neighbors' driveways as turn <br />arounds at the and of the divided load, rather than driving all the way to <br />the proposed cul -de -ow? <br />3. AVERAGE SWPE MEASUREACCM ARE CRITICAL BUT ]REMAIN <br />UNCLEAR <br />Given the zoning restrictions for hillside development and the obviously fragile <br />nature of the steeply sloped lots, average slope m cI for all building lots <br />is critical to the EM analysis as well as the pmjed application procas& Yet, we <br />have little confideace that the avarage slope me nuremamfg on the record are <br />COMM You will recall, fbr cmnple, in the Dw mber 7, 2010 staffreport, slope <br />111CUMame0ts submitted by the applicant (BKF Ems) and by the planning <br />staff were signific Wly dif%rt. Spot chaeldng by an expariencyed community <br />member showed that the staffments were closer to the mark and that the <br />applicant undeaststed the slope mcascu+raments. (See attadied eomoeats by Bruce <br />Storm), Curiously, the Notioe of Public Hearing for this Bat appeal de=*bes the <br />average slope using the applicant's numbers ("From 22 percent to <br />38 percent"). And the August S staff report for this h=M incorrectly describes <br />the mile's average slopes as being up to 4U°14. How and why is this happening? <br />4. VEGETATION AUTIGATIaON KEASORES ARE EXTRRUSLY DIFFICULT TO <br />IMPLEMENT, MONITOR AND rMFORCH <br />I agree with the stair report's conclusion that geological mitigation measures may <br />indeed be infeasible and therefore inapplicable. In fact most if not all the <br />:mitigation measures adopted by the Planning Commission are extremely difficult to <br />implement, require intensive and continuous monitai ft and have no hope of being <br />enforced. Mitigation measures affecting vegetation aptly demonstrate this key <br />Inadequacy of the BIR: <br />• <br />Establishing and maintaining native plants isn'; easy. Native grasses <br />especially are hard to establish & maintain. Is it realistic to expect the <br />property owners to be able to continue to comply over the long term? <br />Subsequent buyers? Will the City (or another group?) be able to provide <br />sufficient initial and on-going education to assist homeowners in complying <br />with the mitigation requirements? <br />a Who will monitor effectiveness of the mitigations once projects are done? <br />• The proposed plant list includes some plants that failed to survive (on. <br />properties near the site) due to repeated damage by deer. Tbes+e include: <br />Ceanothus, sp, Fremontodendcon sp, Heteromeles arbutifalia, Cercis <br />occidentalis, etc). <br />Oak/grassland communities are complex Is the definiti on of tree "health" <br />sufficiently broad to take this complexity int D consideration? Is it necessary <br />to remove as many oaks/laurel as proposed? One criteria the consultant <br />used to define trees In poor health was "leaning." Yet many healthy oaks <br />