Laserfiche WebLink
7A <br /> Page 25 <br /> sligh�ly to accommodate a i5' setback from fi.��e top ofthe bank as defined by their <br /> engineer.These design changes increases the di.stance from the l0U-yeaz flood surface to <br /> the homes on lots 3 and 4 to approximatel.y 5' and 10'respectively. <br /> Discussiun <br /> We do not believe that the minor adjusf�nents to the home locat�ons�n Iots 3 and 4 <br /> cansritute a signif cant enough change to znitigate potential safety hazards�rom flooding <br /> Qn these properties to a less than significant tevel.We urge the Commission to requixe <br /> that the creekside pxoperties be set back at minunum 25 feet required by ordivance to <br /> provide reasonabte fireeboard to ensure safefiy of the residents duning times of high water <br /> in the creek.If the Applicant is not wi.11ing to compiy with the ordinance,an EiR shou�d <br /> , be required to properly eva.�ua.t�this impact and analyze.aiternatives. <br /> 6.I5 Transportation and Traff c(d)—"Substantially increase hazards due to a <br /> design feature{e.g.sbarp curves ar dangerous intersection�)ar incvmpsrible�rs�s <br /> (eg.farm equipmenE) <br /> Recap <br /> �n our�S/MND con�ments,we argued that the cambination of several of th�desig.�x <br /> features of t�ae proposed in�rnat road.way and intersectzons on Finger Avenue-a.narrow, <br /> non-standard roadway wi.dth,lack of a sidewallc,biind eurves aud views due to reduced <br /> street frontages,and intersec#ion spa.cing that does n.at meet the mi�imum clistance <br /> required by the Cit�y's engineering standards,would substantially uYCrease haza7rds for#11e <br /> deveiopment and the ad�oining ne�ghborhood.The likely increase in the conc�n�ration of <br /> pa�rked cars on Finger�iue to the elimination of three public parking spaces would further <br /> limit visibility and maneuverabiiity on th�public street.. <br /> The City in its response did not consider vur arguznents to rise to t�e te�vel of a significant <br /> impact but did,however,recommend against grant.ing a subdivisi�n exception that wc�uld <br /> allow for the private road to be consixucted as praposed,In the xeport of Feb. 1.0,sraf� <br /> cited a number of safety issues in d�fense of i#s recommend.ation#o den.y the excep�ion. <br /> The reasons for recarnmending denial of the proposed roadway were: <br /> 1) The 25-foot wide sireet accommodates the 25-foot backout aisle for vehictes <br /> exiting from private driveways <br /> 2) The narrovver street width requires sharper�rning radu for lazger vehicle�,which <br /> may result in landscaping adjacent to driveways being run aver,or require more <br /> than one back-up maneuver. <br /> 3} The curb defines the roadway and makes it more difficult for vehi.cles to pull anto <br /> ihe lot in loca�.ons�ther#haa�he dri�veway curb cut. <br /> 4} A sid�walk provides a ptace for a passenger to exit from a caz when being <br /> d.�opped off. <br /> 5) A sidewalk grovides an area for pedestrian access that i.s separated from vehicle <br /> movernent and protecte�d by the curb. <br /> While we were pleased;th,at sta.ff recomrrzend�d d�niai of the roadway exceptivn,the <br /> above issues relate directly#o safety hazards that stem from the c�esign of the roadway <br /> and should have been evaluated more carefiz�Iy under CEQA.A requirement#o conform <br />