My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Browse
Search
AgdaPkt 2013-09-23 Closed and Regular
RedwoodCity
>
City Clerk
>
Agenda Packets
>
2010-2019
>
2013
>
AgdaPkt 2013-09-23 Closed and Regular
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/29/2020 11:08:42 AM
Creation date
9/20/2013 9:10:50 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CC Index
CC Index - Document Type
Agenda Packet
Meeting Type
Regular
Agency Type
City Council
Date
9/23/2013
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.
/
751
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 300 <br />8.A. - Page 58 <br />Appear of the Redwood City Planning Commission's C.erffcadon of the Fina] 3R <br />August 31, 2010 <br />Page 5 of B <br />character and quality of the site and its sumaundings. If the Commission does not <br />yet know what how development is going to appear visually, we do not sw how <br />it can conclude without a doubt dw them is no aesthetic impae t or =dfy an ER <br />with the m iption measures it has adopted <br />The FOR docs not address potential son erosion caused by the loss of mature tree <br />DOW systems that Support earth stability in the area. The removal of over hetlf of <br />the trees which cturentiy significantly contnbute to the hilisiele's stabilization <br />above and. below Lain Way) are proposed to be replaced by trees that will <br />take aver five years to establish ,mot systems and Fovide re -stabilization <br />nTparL The CommisWon's response to this concern, a.e., that this midgaion <br />measum will eliminate any significant emvuU mental impact, amounts to no more <br />than a leap of faith since the Commies ca lneb the repmu and information to <br />know if mitigation would be succwsfifl (we do not believe it would be). <br />Moreover, the reports and mitigation studies the Commission does have do not <br />account for consecutive winter seasons and their c f u on erosion and damage <br />frcam the degradation that will occur doting the development and const ra ou <br />phases. <br />The FF...Ilt does not address potential "generation of excessive gr oundborne <br />vibrasion or groundborne noise levels" (as required by the CEQA Envh mnental <br />CbtckUst), which might be assumed to occur when geology mitigations call for <br />"drilled pier foundations and compacted emginmed UL" (FM Mitipdw <br />Measure C*0109y-1, noting the need for drilled pier foundations.) <br />The FBIR refers to the "temporary" nature of the significant air quality and noise- <br />imp= <br />oiseimpact caused by project development and coustruc m The FM omits <br />mentioning in this context that such construction is proposed to continue for up to <br />nine years (although it does mention that tree removal and Leavy construction will <br />ensue for the a ntim construction period. (See DIIR, sec. 3: Fiavironmenttal <br />lWact Analysis, 3.1 Aesthetics.) 7U mitigation measures attempt to address <br />isolated objectionable impacts, but ria not caprm the cumulative effoct of 9 -plus <br />years of these conditions. It is a foregone conclusion that some neighbors, <br />particularly those households with elderly residents and children will quite <br />literally be forced Brom their homes as a result of moused ttc, noise, reduced <br />air quality, risk of landslides and the constant pre smcc of heavy const uWm <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.