Laserfiche WebLink
8.A. - Page 383 <br />S.A. - Page 141 <br />construction activities. Also of note, which is not mentioned in tbereport is the fad ihat <br />maty trees which are not tagged and ewnwdexed inusnifcant will be ramoved which is <br />not shown any where in the plan or mwdo ned in the EiR as to what impact their loss will <br />have an ft environment. We understand that even though thm tis are coniddeaed <br />small, they are will established with significant root balls that in lame mmibera as they <br />are in this project area add to the stability of existing soils and are well above the browse <br />line of dew and are part of the natural canopy in this area. The eVumala*m effect of <br />removing vast numbers of these so called insi smficent tress that are not accounted for are <br />Mcely to result in significant effect and should be studying: These are supply ignored <br />and not accounted for in this report. In addition, burse of the keyed and breach buttress <br />and fill in the Cleo 1-Z mitigation mom, all a at gt*g trees will be ctompkWy removed <br />from lots 14-19, which is basically *ip-mbing that area. <br />For the record, we do not fed that any amount of vegetation orplauft of trees will <br />cover the massive retaining walls that will be necessary tv m4Wolt the houses square <br />footage that is bring requested by the previous Planed Devekgmient Permit: Wa are also <br />concerned regarding who will be responsible for the keeping up the vegetation in the <br />many years down the mad and how it will be replaced if trees or plants fan to grow or are <br />eaten by the deer and how fest this replacement will be required to occur. <br />Since we live: on Glenwood Ave. the EiR'adso states that we will be affected by shadows <br />not only in our backyard but also on our residences. The mitigation far the shadow ei%d <br />w unacceptable and is definitely not below a less than, significant level fur the 4 houses an <br />Glenwood Ave. that will be affected by this shadowing effict. Laving in Redwood City <br />allows us to enjoy our backyard living area and garden and we are vary concerned that <br />this area will to be fltreste need in a very native way by this project. <br />As for the aesthetics part of the HIR„ we still firmly belime that the amount of ennmde <br />used and the size of the retaining wall will be very unsightly and does not fit the <br />wzru x ing look. Comparison of retainigg wall size shoo d be onmparod in other homes <br />built in the surrounding area. <br />In addition, our neibboring cities have re i mmendod in the past that when a large <br />development is proposed that part of the EIR and mitigation measures require n ycling <br />of material s that are removed from proposed project site such as trees being removed am <br />be used as mulch for future landscqping the pmje ct ani some t m can be bucketed and <br />taken cart of and then replanted in the project area and some of the trees if large enough <br />can be used to msk'e garden lat6.m for landscaping etc. Palo Alto has =wdy required <br />this on a recent Bill cartificaition. We fieri these same: staneiw& should also be applied in <br />EIR reports in Redwood City on pmjeots of this size as part of giving back what we take <br />from the environment. We hope this recycling p u: ice can be eanforoed with this report <br />as well w future reports in Redvrood City. <br />I stall fad this foal BIR inadequately addresses the respamee that landslide% erosion and <br />other geoteclimical issues can be mitigated to a less that significant level. Since these <br />mitiotioens will inquire. design level geotecbnieal investigations which will not be <br />