AgdaPkt 2012-09-10 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

8.A. - Page 365 Finger Ave,Froject FEIR Camments June 15, 2012 Page 6 of�2 Response G-31 This comment asked how large treea propoaed for preservation woezld survive given their raota'proximi#y to either the project hnttses and pa�rement raadways, and that the canopies of several of th� irees fs in the same air space that the second staries of several of fihe proposed houses. The respanse states that a new arborist report supperts the �ndings o# the previous arbarisYs reporrt. That is true. However neither arbo�ist's report adc�ressed the issues raisec2 in t�e comrnents, In fact, t}�e second report does not address project impacts at aII. Therefore this response fails #a addreas the substanc1e of the comrnent. Further, the City #ai�s tv provide any substantial evidenre #�at there vvputd be �a significant impacts to tha mature trees on the site or that such impacts would be apprvpriately mitigaked. On the other hand, the CiY+y has been in possession of substan�ial evidence indicating that a ntxmber of trees on the site would Iikely suffer significant impa�ts from construction and other proje�t-related acti�r�ities and has apparent�y chosen not to cansider thys informatian in �e EIR, T'he first of these is included on pages 30-32 of a City Sta#f Report to the T'lanning Camrnission, dated �eb. 1�,2009, In thia repoxt,staf�identi�iea 8 trees that they felt were IfkeYy not to survive de�e to fihe ama�nt of development in the tree prokecti�n zones and the arnpunt of impact on the root environmer�t. 'Thie report also npted tha�the Tree Arotection Zpnes identified in the McClenahan tree survey are tao small, and noted the tree protection provisians of this repork are general and da nat specifically address the individ�aI trees. In addition, sta#f nated that additianal impacks would possibly rest�It fmm canopy remova�.The s#aff report recommended oversight of tree proteetion by the City, installaiaon vf pier and grade-beam fonndations to rrainimize rAOt irnpaCt, a�d possibl�e madification af home designs. The secona piece of evidence for sig�ificant impa�t ta the trees to he retained is mntained in an etnail fram Nelda Matheny,President of Hortscier�ce, Inc.,a leading tree preservahon f�rm, to resident Daniel Ponti, dated Deoember 31, 2008 and submitted to the City c�n Jaan. 13,2011. Ms. Matheny noted ape�ific likely impacts fo tze�s #9 and #10, confir,med the staff repvrta cancluaion that the McClenahan TPZ's are like2y too Iow and lacking in any consideration of the impacts af caanopy removal. Ms. Matheny concludes, "I waudd question rvhether on[y 23 t�ees wilT in fact be removed, Because of the extensive intrusron info the arborisf's tree prvtectivn zane(verticatl�and horizo�tally), it is Iikel�thaE not ald the ttees fderttified for p�eservatio�t wtll in fact be�reserned. " Response G-32 This comrnent reyUesfed phofosiznulations af the proposed housea ta provicle object�ive evidence upan which to support the analysis of visua] impacts, The response stated that a coxnplete set of all project elevations is an fzle with the City, This essential information is not in the EIR. In additic�ry even i# the public knew �iat such elevatio�a existed (which was not discIosed in the DEIR) and ev�tt if they made the tima ta go to City Hal1 to laok at them, the public may or may not lae able tv interpre# #he elevations in #he context oE the site and neighborhood, Everyone can interpret photosimuIations, wHich