Laserfiche WebLink
- 8.A. - Page 57 <br /> Apgeal of t[�e Redwood City Planning Comm�ssion's Certification af the Final EIR <br /> Au�ust 3I, �010 <br /> Pa�e 4 of 8 <br /> G�enwood Avenue and the creelc that runs throug� both through Laurel Way and <br /> Glenvvoad. We feel that it is s�ply not pQSSib�e far the Cor�uissian to state <br /> u�ith su�cient canfidence that rz�itigation rneasures wil� reduce the environmentaI <br /> impacts to an ins�gnificant level when it �acks such critica� evidence as bank <br /> erosion studies anc3. ger�technical investigatians. <br /> Whi1e we un�erstand that some of these reparts are related to the design of <br /> speci�ic housing sites, we believe that the fragile cflndition of this rural area, its <br /> extrezne�y steep topagraphy, and unchartered developrnent campels the <br /> Comtxvssion to consider sttch info�natiQn in order to analyze the EIR, accurate�y <br /> assess its limita�ions and the risks of this proposed praject. (Ahsent this <br /> knowledge, rhe Cammission's eonc�usion that "no sigr�.ificant impact" will result <br /> from the project c�early 3acks key supporEang evidence and a factua.I basis.) We <br /> do not belie�ve that this "cart bcfore the horse" appraach ta the prvject's evaluation <br /> was intended by the Cornrnission as the Camn�issioners thernselves expressed <br /> inC�rest in reviewing these reports at the Au�ust 24th �iearing. <br /> • The FEIR does not adequately address what the C�.QA Environmenta] Checklist <br /> describes as "degradataian of the existing vxsual character or qt�atity of the site and <br /> its surroundings" and "substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista." The <br /> Comrnission ��;ds that measures such as the plant�ng of small replacement trees <br /> and vegetataon wil� sufficien�y zr�itigate the Ioss of fve acres of open space, <br /> ninety-one mature trees, naturaily-foz waterways azid other aspects of this <br /> scenic area. (See e.g., FEIlZ, M�tigation Measure Biology-16) However, the <br /> praject area has been mainly untouched for aver SO years (the �rees forrn a canopy <br /> av�r a curving dirt raad), and no amaunt af aesthetic mitibation wil� reverse what <br /> affected zesidents have r�ferred to (in coix�men�s �efore the Cnmmissian) a� "st�p <br /> mining" of the area. <br /> p The FEIR great�y underest�mates the azinount of con�rete and otlzer unsightly <br /> �nate�als that �x=iIl be visible from a praject of this size and steepnes�, as well as <br /> the Iack af hillside that wi1P t�e avai�abke for any plantinb d�e to the <br /> disproportionately larga square footage per house that is proposec�. {See e.g., <br /> Aesthetic Mitigation Measures 1-4 cailir�g �or lan�scaping plans, street lightin� <br /> plans and veaetation screening) The Comrnission�rs' stated intention to wait for <br /> lanc�scaping and ot�aer aesthetic-related plans at th�; �.me of permit approvai is <br /> counter to the CEQA's very purpose, i.e., to prevent the degradatzon of the visual <br />