|
<br />8A
<br />Page 39
<br />
<br />Attachment 5
<br />
<br />
<br />r..,ll-J,..- ~::>' !1rr,_r'i--+ -)('
<br />\,_ O. {'" 1 I (, Err \ ;) ::> ,) 1.., . d L C .)
<br />
<br />L.2]r1dscape l-\!"chit.e("["urc; inc,
<br />
<br />Via Email
<br />
<br />December 3, 2007
<br />
<br />MEMO TO: Tom Passanisi /
<br />City of Redwood City; Planning Department
<br />1017 Middlefield l$.6ad
<br />Redwood Cityl~A 94063
<br />
<br />FROM: Robert Deegin, Callander Associates
<br />
<br />RE: THE PR1.t:SERVE AT REDWOOD SHORES PRECISE PLAN! response
<br />to comments
<br />
<br />!
<br />
<br />We have received ,ct number of comments from the Planning Commission regarding the
<br />Precise Plan for The Preserve at Redwood Shores. One major theme in the comments
<br />made by Planni~g Commission members was a request for clarification as to the
<br />differences bei1keen the Muted and Fully Tidal Alternatives. The two alternatives are
<br />essentially the/same in terms of initial hydrology and environmental benefits. Both will
<br />restore tidal 9ction to the site and will provide a full range of high and low tides. In the
<br />Muted Tidal/Alternative, the tide will be restricted to approximately 4-5 feet above
<br />mean sea leyel, but high tides rise above that level only a few times a year, so this
<br />difference Will not significantly impact the hydrology of the site. The primary
<br />difference between the two alternatives is the method used to restore tidal action to the
<br />site. In the;'Fully Tidal Alternative, portions of the outer levee are removed, while the
<br />Muted Tidal Alternative leaves the outer levee intact and uses mechanical tidal inlets to
<br />facilitate the restoration of tidal action. The preliminary opinion of the U.S. Fish and
<br />Wildlife Service (USFWS) and other resource agencies strongly favors the Fully Tidal
<br />alternative'for several reasons. Breaching the outer levee eliminates access by people
<br />and predators that may interfere with the sensitive habitat of the endangered California
<br />clapper rail: Additionally, the USFWS feels that the mechanical systems required by the
<br />Muted Tidal Alternative are less reliable and that the success of a tidal wetland
<br />environmeT\t dependent on these systems is uncertain. At best, mechanical systems
<br />require regu~ar maintenance to ensure their proper functionality. Support for the Fully
<br />Tidal Alternative, however, is contingent upon confirmation in the detailed biological
<br />opinion to beprepared by the USl'WS during the permitting process. Fully Tidal
<br />Alternative is the preferred alternative to be developed under this Precise Plan due
<br />
<br />! ":,";'.'!,';'.:'i'im ,,>,\.,?.t"!'.jf:~
<br />
<br />: ~ ! bU ~',lJn Ce!'ir~~f f)t~-,.'t-~, :-:1,,:;1::,. 1 (}'i.
<br />
<br />:_i~~':~h;:,;:pt; A~d';:t(l(.tt:!e
<br />
<br />,lr;~~:~" t.:. i.:'aiiarh::'C;!", r<::Li\ ~'Yn,::{.:;:;i
<br />
<br />'.}r:t; \:;,:j;',;:,:G. :',:-':i, ~144(j; 4/.::'iY
<br />
<br />F;:l;";;,'hG (.~(!rri~-;-;;:~, Ci\ rY,f,70'U 'r. ~.::'?
<br />
<br />U~b;-jn 1>;')IWl
<br />
<br />A. :,j;;rk ~)~i(ht~~,.~-_ /\~;:..i\ f);':ncpid
<br />
<br />;- ~'::::>(i ,:; }i':.-,'; 3 -; _~
<br />
<br />': ' ;~.::\.~ '
<br />
<br />!.::f'-:C' ~~!::::-;.;:!!:~~
<br />
<br />f""::(i;-':;-' :', r!c.~-i'( ~i-:'r, ,i\SLA F~;n( '_"."
<br />
<br />.- r" .... .- """"
<br />"', :;. ~ : _ ", I.; t., . ::' . '. _I ~ :.
<br />.... -...
<br />
<br />I:: .::; ::; . :.=; ':) ;:.~ . r:; 'i ~~:t,
<br />
<br />:~'.:'~! k :m\~ i~f':<T,:'J .10n :".'1!:Jn:'lli"i';
<br />
<br />,. ~ ,~' (7" ~ ,':.' ,. i>";'
<br />
<br />'N;;~;'l'-. (:..:l :;) j ',d('~ ,:',~: :.; '.~ (.; ':{~ -;:::'j .':c. i"',
<br />
<br />:',';'..:";',. (; a!j r;! ,'1 d er ii ~~ ..; 1.,<, -:;~:, \:;":
<br />
<br />~:.'rh!!f(;'r~rnen~~jl ?i,:ir~n!r~'.;;
<br />
<br />,:..",. ~rn;r' /','. \:Y,:_'fyj':',K~ ,:\:::- ,:" )":,'!:'(iOr::'
<br />
|