AgdaPkt 2012-09-10 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

8.A. - Page 457 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 remova] impacts are significant and therefare 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, pecar�,walnut)that do not substantially contribu#e visually to the site nar pravide substantial biologic value. The project retains those trees that are visually and biologically significant. COMMENT: Project Description Defciencies RESPONSE: The commentor identifies five specific items related to the project description where mare detait or clarification is sought. These comments restate infottnation 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 ta Comments/Responses G-21, G-22, G-27, G-29, G-3Q, 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. RESP�NSE: The commentor takes issue with the FEIR's responses for a number of the D�TR comments, listed above. The FEYR 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 be2ow. Comments/Respanses 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 civi) engineer has performed calculations ta determine the design ofthe storm water runoffdetention and treatment system, sized par C.3 reqt�irements, The final design, per MM HYD-5 and MM FIYD-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 latast RWCQB requirements at the time of permit issuance. The commentor ofFers no explanatian for tne suggestion that a project c�evelvped at just over 5 dwellir�g units per acre on minimum 6,000 sq.ft. lots cannot feasibly implement storrnwater requirements that are routinely implemented by more in#ense c�evelopments projects throughout the Bay Area on Iots srnaller than what the project proposes. The conceptual Grading and Drainage Plan and Utitity Plan included in the FEIR convey the project's proposed approach tv managing and trea#ing site runoff, and the City will confirm the actual construction details at the grading permit stage. Carr►ments/Responses G-27 (community character) • The comment identifies Response G-2b (which invol�es Lot 3 erasion 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 compatibi�ity were widely known to the City when the Draft E[R was prepared, however,the Draft EIR was prepared by City staf�'and cansultants under Finger Avenue Nine-Lot Planned Development Project 3 Responses to FEIR Comments City of Aedwood City June 2012