Laserfiche WebLink
manatt $�A. - Page 121 <br /> manatt � phelps i philiips <br /> Honorable Mayor and Members of the C�ty Council <br /> August 1 S, 2411 <br /> Page 10 <br /> that the propased rnitigation measures will reduce the environmental impacts to <br /> an insignificant level as the EIR lacks such critical evidence as bank erasio�� <br /> studies ar�d geotechnical investiga�ians. . <br /> o CEpA's Appendix G En�ironmental Checklist Farm mandates identification ai�d <br /> analysis of significant aesthetic impacts, includin� "degradation of the existing <br /> visuai chaaracler or quality of the site and its surroundings" and "substantial <br /> adverse effect on a scenic vista." The EIlZ frails to adequ�.tely identify and <br /> analyze these impacts. For example, the EIlZ greatty underestirnates the amount <br /> af concrete and other unsightly rr�aterials that will be visible from a project of tl�is <br /> size and steepness, as w�;ll as the lack of hillsid� thai wili be available fox any <br /> planting due to the dispraportiarlately large square footage per house that is <br /> proposed. (See e.g„ Aesthetic Mitigation Measures 1-4 calIing for landscaping <br /> p�axas, street lighting plans and �egetation screening.} The Commissioners' statcd <br /> intention to wait for landscaping and other aesthetic-related plans at the time of <br /> permit approval is counter to the CEQA V�I'� �llI�C358 1.2.� to preve��t the <br /> degradation af the visual character and quality af the site and its surroundings. <br /> If the City does not yet kno�uv how develaprnent is going to appeax visuaIly, it <br /> cannot conclude on the basis of substantial record evidence that tl�ere is na <br /> aesthetic impact. <br /> a'The EIR does nnt address potential soil erosion caused by the loss of more than <br /> 91 trees from the steeply sloped sitc. First, the loss of cai7opy cover wil! expose <br /> the hillside to heavier and direct rain during storrns and the drying effects of direct <br /> sun exposure in the summer. Second, the Ioss of wel!-estabIished root systems <br /> wili reduce soil stability in tha� bot� the extensive existing root sysfe�ns that help <br /> hold the steep hillside {including creekbeds and banks) in place, and the <br /> waterholding eapacity of the hillaide (throu�h the raot systems} wil� bc <br /> permanently rernoved. <br /> Severely leaning trees and utility poles, pulled by canstant erosion, are clearly <br /> visible on the steeper 1ats, providing evidence of erosion and hillside instabili#y. <br /> The removai of over half of tki,e trees which currently cantribute ta the hillside's <br /> stabilization (both above and below Laurel Way} is praposed to be "mitigated" by <br /> replaceznent t�•ees fhat will take over 5 yeazs to establish a root system anc� provide <br /> re-stabitization support. In the interim perioci, this hillside could easil�y fail <br /> putting other neazby residents and property at substantial risk. (See, e,g., <br /> "Landslide in Pit�sburg inaperils seven hom�s: Officials investigate potential <br /> ' reasons for half acre slide; de�eloper of nearby subdivision puts evacuees up in <br /> hotels." Contra Costa Times {Wainut Cree�C, CA). McClatcny-Tribune <br />