Laserfiche WebLink
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 />