My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Browse
Search
AgdaPkt 2011-08-22
RedwoodCity
>
City Clerk
>
Agenda Packets
>
2010-2019
>
2011
>
AgdaPkt 2011-08-22
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2012 12:02:59 PM
Creation date
8/18/2011 4:39:56 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CC Index
CC Index - Document Type
Agenda Packet
Meeting Type
Joint
Agency Type
City Council and Redevelopment Agency
Date
8/22/2011
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
456
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
8.A. - Page 147 <br /> o The foIlow-up field work consisted of onlv one hour of observation on <br /> one day at the study site. <br /> o In addition, the main fiel� work (by TRA) supporting the biological <br /> reparts was completed 5 ar more years ago. [May & October 2006), <br /> Cornerstone's fol�ow-up field work [which looked for anly the <br /> Fragrant fritillary) was done more than 4 years ago (3/2 Z/07). <br /> o The biolagical reports fail to take into account the shar� blaom period <br /> for native plants. <br /> o The reports (especially the second one) fail to even consider effects of <br /> variations in bloom periods at differing e�evations. There are <br /> substantial elevatian differences between the study site and the <br /> Edgewood Park lily habitat. The fragrant fritillaries (seen 3/21/1� in <br /> Edgewood) may have already passed their bloom periad at study site. <br /> 2. CHANGES TO THE RUADWAY. <br /> • CEQA re4uires that an EIR should facus on mitigation measures that are <br /> feasible, practical, and effective and fully enforceab2e and should be <br /> listed, cansidered and seleeted to reduce all potentially significant impacts to <br /> levels of insignificance. <br /> • The EIR and the project description fail to identify (or mitigate for) the many <br /> issues assaciated with bui�ding a new, substantially wiaened, roadway <br /> including, for example: <br /> o Failure �o include adequate information (in writing or on <br /> maps/drawings) ta show how the new raadway will affect the <br /> boundaries, retaining walls, and slope stability of the existing Laurel <br /> Way hames. <br /> o Failure to assess to adequately assess the impact oF the extensive cut <br /> and fill proposals on soil stability. <br /> o Failure to include adequate information to identify trees and boulders <br /> on existing properties that wi�l neec� to be remaved to widen the <br /> roadway. <br /> • The EIR and the Project Description fail to evaluate the consequences of <br /> building a bi-level section of the roadway in at least the following ways. <br /> o Failure to adequately consider the impact af the weight of the bi-level <br /> section. <br /> o Failure to consider effects of the divided roadway on saFety. <br /> o What will prevent drivers from taking short c�ts by going the wrong <br /> way on the divided portions of the road to avoid having to drive past <br /> their hames and then came back the other way? <br /> o How will one-way traffic violations be enforced? If the City is not <br /> going to police parking infractions, how will it police wrong way <br /> traffic? <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.