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 389 <br />B.A. - Page 147 <br />o The follow --up field work consisted of of observation on <br />one day at the study site. <br />o In addition, the main field work (by TRA) supporting the biological <br />reports was completed 5 or more years ago. (May & October 2006). <br />Cornerstone's follow-up field work (which looked for only the <br />Fragrant fritillary) was done more than 4 years ago (3/21/07). <br />o The biological reports fail to take into account the short bloom period <br />for native plants. <br />o The reports (especially the second one) fol to even consider effects of <br />variations in bloom periods at differing elevations. There are <br />substantial elevation differences between the study site and the <br />Edgewood Park lily habitat The fragraz,t fritillairles (seen 3/21/11 in <br />Edgewood) may have already passed their bloom period at study site. <br />2. C1HMGES TO THE ROADUFAY. <br />CEQA requires that en EIR should focus on mEtigation memma that are <br />feasfbiie, practicil, and eMacdye and fnUy enforceable and should be <br />listed, Considered and selected 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 associated with bulldft a neva, substantlaliywidened, roadway <br />including, for example; <br />o Failure to include adequate information (in writing or on <br />maps/drawings) to show how the new roadway will affect the <br />boundaries, retaining walls, and slope stability of the existing Laurel <br />Way homes. <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 will need to be removed to widen the <br />roadway. <br />The EIR and the Project Description fail to evaluate tate consequences of <br />building a bi Iewl section of the roadway in at least the following ways. <br />o Failure to adequately consider the Impact of the weight of the bi-level <br />section. <br />a Failure to consider effects of the divided roadway on safety- <br />* What will prevent drivers from taldng short cuffs by going the wrong <br />way on the divided portions of the road to avoid having to drive past <br />their homes and then come back the other way? <br />d How will one-way traffic violations be enforced? If the City is not <br />going to police parking infractions, how will it pol ice wrong way <br />traffic <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.