Laserfiche WebLink
8.A. - Page 228 <br /> Ms. Maureen Riardan <br /> 5enior Planner <br /> Planning Department <br /> City of Redwood City <br /> 1017 Midd�efield Road <br /> Redwood City, CA <br /> June 19, 2012 <br /> 5ubject: Finger Avenue Pride Coznmittee Comments on the FEIR <br /> Dear Ms.Riordan, <br /> We have reviewed tne Final EIR and provide the following with respect to the City's <br /> adequacy af its respanses to the DEIR comments we submitted in September of last <br /> year. <br /> Response]-Z <br /> This response was to our Questions abaut the survey data and cflnstruction af the <br /> Vesting Tentative map.We realize that the VTM was constructed by a licertsed <br /> surveyor,and appreciate that you have verified that lot depths for the Eaton Ave. <br /> parcels have been held. However aur request for clarification of the location of the <br /> creek bank and channel within the defined lot limits is not addressed,nor has a rnap <br /> been provided that extends topographic information at least 10�' from the property <br /> boundaries as is required by RWC Code Section 30.35H1.The shape and position of <br /> the creek channel and bank is critical to de�ermining actual available building site <br /> area for the project. McCloud's ariginal VTM submitted in 2006, erroneausly placed <br /> the top of bank within the stream channel approxin:�ately 7-8 ft BELOW the <br /> topagraphic bank tap.This was an egregious error clearly motivated by an attempt <br /> ta show more net lot area on the project site than actually exists.A complete survey <br /> af the creek within and adjacent to the prpject boundaries is essential far clarifying <br /> the amhiguities we pointed out in our previous comment. In this respect,the <br /> response does nat address our concerns. <br /> Response J-11 <br /> While the response indicates that the project roaaway will now incorporate <br /> pervious surfacing,which will reduce surface runoff and the amount of stormwater <br /> that will need to be treated,the response aoes not address whether there is <br /> sufficient landscape area to treat the runoff as required by new low-impact design <br /> standards. The drainage p�an,which is difficuIt ta read as presented, appears to <br /> shaw swales within private yards.The FE[R does not verify that there is sufficient <br /> length and capacity of these swales to treat runoff to standard. Plus,given the <br /> locatian of swales withir� individually owned properties [not HOA controlled or <br /> maintained),how aaes the City prapose to guarantee that the swales would be <br />