AgdaPkt 2011-08-22 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

8.A. - Page 141 construction activities. Also of note, which is not mentioned in the report is the fact that many trees which are not tagged and considered insignif cant will be removed which is not shown any where in the plan or mentioned in the EIR as ta what impact their loss will have on the environment. We understand that even though these trees are considered small, they are will es#ablished with significant roo# balls that in large numbers as they are in this project area add to the stability of existing soits and are well above the browse Iine of deer and are part of the natural canopy in this area. The cumulative effect of removing vast numbers of these so called insignificant trees that are nof accounted for are likely to result in significant effect and should be studying. Tb.ese are simply ignored and not accounted for in this report. In addition, because of the keyed and bench buttress and fill in the Geol-2 mitigation measures, all existing trees will be completely removed from lots 14-19, which is basically strip-miz�ing that area. For the record, we do not feel that any amount of vegetation or planting of trees will cover the rnassive ret�ining walls that will be necessary ta support the houses square foatage that is being requested by the previous Planned Development Permit. We are also concerned regarding who will be responsible for the keeping up the vegetation in the many years down the road and how it will be replaced if trees or plants fail to grow or are eaten by the deer and how fast this replacement will be required to occur. Since we live on Glenwood Ave. #he EIR also s#ates that we will be affected by shadows not onIy in our backyard but also on o�r residences. The mitigation for the shadow effect is unacceptable and is definitely no# below a Iess than significant level for the 4 houses on Glenwood Ave. that will be affected by this shadowing effect. Living in Redwood City allows us to enjoy our backyard living area and garden and we are very concerned that this area will to be threatened in a very negative way by this project. As for the aesthetics part of the EIR, we still firmly believe that the amount of concrete used and the size of the retaining wall will be very unsightly and does not fit the surrounding look. Camparison of retaining wall size should be compaxed in other houses built in the surrounding area. In addition, our neighboring cities have recommended in the past that when a large development is proposed tYiat part of the EIR and mitigation measures require recycling of rnaterials that are removed from proposed project site such as trees being removed can be used as mulch for future landscaping the project area, some trees can be bucketed and taken care of and then replanted in the project area and some of the trees if large enough can be used to make garden lattices for landscaping etc. Pala Alta has recently requirea this on a recent EIR certification. We feel these same s#andards should also be applied in EIR reports in Redwood City on projects of this size as part of giving back what we take from the environment. We hope this recycling practice can be enfarced with this report as well as feiture reports in Redwood Gity. I still #'eel this final EIR inadequately addresses the response that lanc�slides, erosion and other geotechnical issues ca� be mitigated to a Iess that significant level. Since these mitigations will require design 1eve1 geotechnical investigations which will not be