Laserfiche WebLink
. 7A <br /> Page 63 <br /> � f i _ t L".., ... ,:"�"�� � � .._'ry��- , r'� ' <br /> 1` i w <br /> 1 - <br /> Y j <br /> i: t . . <br /> ! <br /> r j <br /> i <br /> � <br /> `` ' Pianning Division `'` <br /> yr ��rd��0� <br /> _ 1017 Ml�dlefeld Ro�d Te)ephone(fi5�}78�-7234 <br /> j P_Q. Box 39'� ��� �diiar�ia Ema�#: tpassanisi@redwoodc�ty.org <br /> � Redwoad City, CA 94�fi3 ��°"'�°�'�7 <br /> �1/ebsite: wv��+v.redwoadcitV,or� <br /> j ,y�, �::i�� Fax:650-78Q-0128 <br /> i <br /> January 2�, 2Qa8 <br /> �ttr_ Robert J. Lan�one <br /> Aaronson, Dickerson, Cohn & Lanzone <br /> g��Laurel S�reet, Suite D <br /> Post 4ffice Bo�c ��65 <br /> San Carlos, Cal. 9407Q <br /> Re: 50, 80, and 88 Finger Avenue <br /> Dear Mr. Lanzone, � <br /> In response to }�our letter af January �4"' concerning the praposed Finger Avenue <br /> Subdivisivn at 50, 80, and 88 Finger A�enue in the Ci#y of Redwaod City, we v�ant to <br /> ass�re you that�he projec� is mo�ing forward thraugh �he C�ty review process, and we <br /> are p�-ocessing this project as we would for any other s�gnifcant planning projec#. As ofi <br /> t�is writing, the appiication sti{i remains incompfete regarding tf�e reques#ed infoi-ma�ion <br /> on the potentia! historie resourc.e impact to th� F�nser Farmhouse which fhe City sta�f�f <br /> has been working on with the Historic Resources Advis�ry Committee (HRA�). <br /> As you know, �he City's Histo�ic Consultant, CIRCA: Histaric Property Development, <br /> reviewed Addendum C �see Ietter dated January 2, 2�08) and cortcluded thai <br /> �lddendum C did not sufficientiy address the concerns af�he HRAC and did no# include <br /> a discussion of haw fhe cvncfusions were de�ived. The January 2, 20D8 C1RCA letter <br /> outlir�es the additional inforrnation that is required to camplete the C�iy's re�3ew in this <br /> subject area. As p�-eviously stated, the Cit}�does not have adequa#e information an tf�e <br /> histaric issues to complete the C�Itural Resources technicaS anaEysis for the Initial <br /> Study. <br /> There appear to be two options ava�lab{e to the City and the applican# regarding th�s <br /> outstandirrg item; either the applicant provides the requested information to the Ci#y, or <br /> th�# information v�ilE be develaped wifhin the con#ext of an Environrnentai Impact Rep�ri <br /> (EiR}. Having no control over the first option, the City wi1l ourline the pracess assum�r�g <br /> the latter cvurse af action. NovErever, we encaurage the first option and be[ieve tha# <br /> conclusions on this matter could be reached quickly if it is fotlowed. <br /> The Ci�y w�ll camplete aff of the ot�er sectior�s ot the administrative Draft ini�ia! Study <br /> later this month. In early February, City staff expects to fi�ali�e the lnitia! Study, <br /> including its determination of the type of CEQA document required for the praject. At <br /> that fime, we wi�! provide yo� with a copy of the Ini#ial Study for yaur review and <br /> concurrerrce wizh its findings prior to in�tiat�ng preparation of the enviranmental <br /> -� - <br />