AgdaPkt 2012-07-09 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

8.A. - Page 277 Finger Ave. Project FEIR Comments June 15, 20I2 Page 6 of 12 Response G-31 Thas comment asked how large trees proposed for pxeservation would survive given their roots' proximity Yo either the project houses and pavement raadways, and thaf the ear�opies of several of the trees is in the same air space that the secona staries of several of the proposed houses. The response states that a new arborisf report supports the findings of the previous axborist's report. That is true. However neither arborist's report addressed the issues raised in t�e comrnents, In fact, t�e second report does not address project impacts at aIl. Therefore this response fails to address the substance of the comment. Further, the City #ails to provide any substantial evidence that there would be no significant impacts to the mature trees on the site or that such impacts would be appropriately mitigated. Qn the other hand, the City has been in possession flf substantial evidence indicating that a number of trees on the si#e woula likely suffer significant impacts from construction and other proje�t-related activities and has apparently chosen not to cansider this information in the EIR. The first of these is included an pages 30-32 of a City Staff Report to the Planning Commission, dated Feb. 10, 2009. In this report, staff identi�ied S trees that they felt were Iikely not to st�rviv�due to the amount of deve�oprnent in the tree protection zones and the arnount of impact on the root environment. This report atso noted that the Tree Protection Zones identified in the McClenahan tree survey are toa sma�l, and noted the tree protection provisions of this report are general and do not specifically address the individual trees. In addition, staff noted that additianal irnpacts would possibly result from canopy remova�. The staff report recommended oversight of tree protection by the City, instatlation o� pier and grade-beam foundations to minimize root impact, and possible modification of home designs. The secand piece of evidence for significant irnpacY to the trees to be retained is contained in an ernail from Nelda Matheny, President of Hortscience, Inc., a leading tree preservation firm, Yo resident Daniel Ponti, da#ed December 31, 2008 and submitted to the City on Jan. 13, 2011. Ms. Matheny noted specific likely impacts to trees #9 and #10, confirmed the staff reports conclusion that the McClenahan TPZ's are likely too low and lacking in any consideration of the impacts of canopy removal. Ms. Matheny cancludes, "I zvould question whether only I3 frees zvill irt fuct be removed. Because of the extenszve infrusion into the arborisf's tree protecfion zorce (vertically and horizontally), it is Iike[y thaE not all the trees identified far preservatzon will in fact be preserved, " Response G-32 This cvmment reyuested photosimulations of the proposed houses to provide objective evidence upon which to support the analysis of visual impacts. The response stated that a complete set of all project elevations is on file with the Cify, This essential informafion is not in the EIR. Tn addition, even if the public knew that such elevafions existed (which was not disclosed in the DEIR) and even if they made the time ta go to City Hall to look at them, tHe public may or may not be able to interpret the elevations in the context of the site and neighborhood, Everyone can interpret photosimulations, which