AgdaPkt 2012-07-09 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

8.A. - Page 369 which would be built on a pier and grade beam foundation, and so such a setback would not avoid erosion nor eliminate the need to protect the yard from erosion. The comment suggests that the project's tree removal impacts are significant and therefore presumably should have been addressed in an alternative design. The four living ordinance- size trees to be removed are not"large, mature oaks and redwoods" as stated in the comment, rather as depicted in FEIR Response G-3,they are ordinary common specimens (bay laurel, olive,pecan,walnut)that do not substantially contribute visually to the site nor provide substantial biologic value. The project retains those trees that are visually and biologically significant. COMMENT: Project Description Deficiencies RESPONSE: The commentor identifies five specific items related to the project description where more detail or clarification is sought. These comments restate information requested by the commentor in Draft EIR comments G-9 through G-17, for which detailed responses have been previously provided(see FEIR pgs. 39-44). COMMENT: Technical Analysis Deficiencies related to Comments/Responses G-21, G-22, G-27, G-29, G-30, G-32, G-33, G-34, G-36, G-38, G-39, G-40, G-41, G-43, G-44, G-45, G-46, G-47, and G-50. RESPONSE: The commentor takes issue with the FEIR's responses for a number of the DEIR comments,listed above. The FEIR responses adequately address the substantive issues raised in each of the identified comments. Nonetheless,where useful, additional detail and clarification for the identified responses are provided below. Comments/Responses G-21 and G-22 (stormwater runoff and treatment) • The project proposes 22,433 sq.ft. of impervious surface area, a net increase of 2,211 sq.ft. over existing conditions. The project's civil engineer has performed calculations to determine the design of the storm water runoff detention and treatment system, sized per C3 requirements. The final design,per MM HYD-5 and MM HYD-6, will be reviewed by the City's engineers at the improvement plan stage prior to issuance of a grading permit,to confirm the project complies with the latest RWCQB requirements at the time of permit issuance. The commentor offers no explanation for the suggestion that a project developed at just over 5 dwelling units per acre on minimum 6,000 sq.ft. lots cannot feasibly implement stormwater requirements that are routinely implemented by more intense developments projects throughout the Bay Area on lots smaller than what the project proposes. The conceptual Grading and Drainage Plan and Utility Plan included in the FEIR convey the project's proposed approach to managing and treating site runoff, and the City will confirm the actual construction details at the grading permit stage. Comments/Responses G-27 (community character) • The comment identifies Response G-26 (which involves Lot 3 erosion protection), but the comment appears to relate instead to Response G-27 involving community character. The neighbors' opinions and concerns regarding the project's neighborhood compatibility were widely known to the City when the Draft EIR was prepared,however,the Draft EIR was prepared by City staff and consultants under Finger Avenue Nine-Lot Planned Development Project 3 Responses to FEIR Comments City of Redwood City June 2012