Laserfiche WebLink
7A <br /> Page 24 <br /> Recap <br /> Our concerns reflected the fact that the pxoposed s#orm water design that inciudes a creek <br /> outfall wauld allow wa#er fro�u�he creek to back up throug�t th�starm..cirain..system <br /> during periods of high flow(but bel.ow flood stage}and cause flooding to properties <br /> adjacent tv Finger Avenue,thus posing a potentially significant impact ta properties <br /> adjacent ta the developmen�. , <br /> Update since the Feb. 14 hearing � <br /> The Applicant has since submit#e�a p�roposat f.o the City for an altern.ate stonn water plan <br /> that wou]d detain and direct the site's sborm wai3er n�noff ta the City's cat�ch basin at the <br /> corner of Finger and E�Camino.Th�is plan would eliminate the need fvr an outfall ar <br /> �anrelia�I��a�c?�fl[ow pre�,ren��rw�yT��+��e carsfru�d in 3I�e c�eek. <br /> Discussion <br /> . While th�re may be other more effective or less expensive approaches to n��a�ng the <br /> site's sturm water than what#i�e Applicant has proposed,the n�w storm wai�er plan,if it . <br /> proves f�sible,w�lt eliminate i�ie ne�d for an outfall in�te creek and vvould�us reduce the� <br /> potential impacfis uncier this CEQ�checklist item ts�a level of non s�gnificance.If thi�or a <br /> simrlaz sbonm water pIan is adopted t��a.t meefis staudards an+d r�oes not require ouifall <br /> evnsLruction in t�ae creek,we would support such a plan and drop our c�aims with respect fio <br /> tk�.is i�m. <br /> 6.8 Hydrology and'Water Quality(g}6�PLace hoasing within a�@0-year�vod hazard <br /> area as mapg�d on a federai F7ood�azard Boundary vr FIaad Insuranee Rate Map <br /> or other#�ood hazard delineativn map7" <br /> Recap <br /> In our ISININD comments we nated that while t�►e 100-year flood surface�s presumably <br /> �vii�in fhe creek channel,on lots 3 and 4,#he 100-year flood surfac;e flows through the rear <br /> yards based on the Applicant's top of bank designaiion shown on the Vesfiing Tenta#ave <br /> Subdivision Map.The praposed hon�es on lots 4$nd 3,in particular,are sited Ia#erally only <br /> � 3 to 5 feet respec�ively from the edge of the fload flow and are only about 1 ft above the <br /> flood surfa�ce in elevation.We concluded t�at because waber within the inundation zane on <br /> #�.ie subject properiy would be moving at high velocity,there is the potentiat for a significant <br /> s afety hazard to peaple and properiy be�ause of the close prox�mify of t�e stra�tures to the <br /> floodway. <br /> The City's response tc�our comments stated that be�ause no struciures are placed direc�y <br /> witliin the floadway,our concerns under t�us etement are not re�evam#.4ur subsequent <br /> reac�ion to this response as present�ed at the Feb.10 hearing is that the City is denying the <br /> rea3it�af t�e potential hazard and#�iat to admit that the properties are con�ined within <br /> the fiood xone but�hat the struc�ures are technically not in:the zone is simply <br /> making excuses in an attempt tv feign compiianc�. <br /> Update since the Feb. 10 hcar�ng <br /> New plans submitted to the C�Ly show that the hames on lots 2,3,and 4 have been moved <br />