AgdaPkt 2012-07-09 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

8.A. - Page 376 RESPONSE: The visual simulations provided by the commentor reinforce the Draft EIR's analysis that introducing two private roadway access points to replace the three current driveways serving 50, 80, and 88 Finger Avenue homes would not substantially degrade the visual character of the streetscape. COMMENT: This comment concerns FEIR Comment/Response J-42 involving tree removal impacts associated with the Creekside Green Alternative. RESPONSE: The response identifies that if this alternative were implemented, a tree protection plan would be necessary to ensure that trees intended to remain and incorporated into the new site plan contemplated under this alternative were not damaged or killed during construction. As this alternative removes fewer trees than proposed by the project,the tree protection plan would be focused on fewer trees overall. The Draft EIR discloses this alternative causes reduced tree impacts than the project. However,none of the trees removed by the project was considered a significant,irreplaceable biologic or aesthetic resource that warranted preservation in an alternative (see FEIR Response G-3), and so preservation of any specific tree(s)was not an explicit focus of any of the alternatives. COMMENT: This comment concerns FEIR Comment/Response J-44 involving the stormwater design provided by the Creekside Green Alternative. RESPONSE: As acknowledged in the Draft EIR's discussion of this alternative and the text revisions provided in the First Amendment/Final EIR responding to the related comment on the Draft EIR, one of the benefits of this alternative site layout is the provision of a large open space amenity that could incorporate a landscape-based stormwater system. Both this project, if it were implemented, or the proposed project,if approved and implemented,would be required to implement LID stormwater measures in conformance with RWQCB requirements. COMMENT: This comment concerns FEIR Comment/Response J-46 involving views of the new detached rowhouses included in the Creekside Green Alternative. RESPONSE: The commentor's assertion concerning the limited visibility of these units, "because they are screened behind the new project home on Finger Avenue, e�sting residences, and vegetative screening"precisely captures the Draft EIlZ's rationale for concluding the project's proposed new homes internal to the site (Lots 1-6, 9)would not be readily visible from Finger Avenue and therefore not impact the current streetscape and neighborhood character. In the case of the detached rowhouses proposed in the Creekside Green Alternative, in the event the units are three stories,their increased height relative to the proposed project's two story homes would increase their visibility from Finger Avenue. COMMENT: This comment concerns FEIR Comment/Response J-49 involving public parking availability. RESPONSE: The potential for future increased parking demand on Finger Avenue should properties on El Camino Real redevelop with new mixed-use or intensified commercial uses as envisioned under the General Plan would be evaluated in the context of the development application review for those future mixed-use and/or commercial projects,taking into account the specific nature of each proposed project, and the provision of off-street parking Finger Avenue Nine-Lot Planned Development Project 10 Responses to FEIR Comments City of Redwood City June 2012