AgdaPkt 2012-09-10 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

8.A. - Page 461 B. RESPONSES TO FEYR COMMENTS FROM THE FINGER AVENUE PRIDE COMMITTEE,DATED JUNE 19,20i2: Note: The commentor takes issue with the FEIR's responses for a number of the DEIR commen#s, many of which overlap with issues raised in the prior letter by Richard Grassetti. Those overlapping issues are not covered again belaw. The FEIR responses adequately address the substantive issues raised in each ofthe identified cornments. The discussion below addresses seIect comments provided in the 2etter which 1) are distinct from Grassetti's letter and 2)for which additional cZarification may be useful beyond the information already provided in the FEIR responses. The letter is attached in its entirety in Attachment 5 ofthe City Council staffrepor�. The respanses below are intended to supplament those already provided in the FEIR, clarifying where necessary responses that may have been misunderstood by the commentor,and adclressing any new issues now being raiset�,the nature of which do not raise any new significant impacts. COMMENT: The commentor takes issue with FEIR Response J-2 concerning the vesting tentative map's depiction of the location of the creek bank and channel. RESPONSE: The vesting tentative map does identify the creekbank location, both the concrete wall at the southern edge of the active channet and the top of bank,and provides site elavation data in 1-foot contour intervals. COMMENT: The commentor takes issue with FEIR Response J-11 concerning the project's conformanca with stormwater res�uirements under provisions C.3, RESPONSE: This topic has been discussed previously as part of the Grassetti June 15, 20I2 letter, see Comments/Responses G-21 and G-22{stormwater runoffand treatrnent} above. COMMENT: This comment concerns FEIR Comment/Response J-15 involving fuYure residents' use of the creek setback areas in the rear portions af Lats 1-4. RESPONSE: The baseline condition ofthe site includes structures and impervious surfaces adjacent to the creek, which will be remo�ed by the project and replaced with pervious rear yards, so it is not accurate to say that use of the site adjacent to#he creek will be `significantly intensifed,' as occupied habitabie structures are a more intense use than occasional use of a rear yard by residents. The project has been reviewed by multiple biological consultant firms,who alI fo�nd it would not result in a significant impact to the creek's biologic values. COMMENT: This comment concerns FEIR Comment/Response�-l6 invalving praposed grading and drainage adjacent to Cordilleras Creek and conformance with the Stormwater Treatment Ordinance provisions regulating impervious surfaces within 25 feet of top of bank. RESPONSE: The project will grade the site adjacent to the creek to fill in low areas upon removal of the existing structures' basements and foundations and pavement. The finished grade will direc#runoff from pervious areas to the creek, and from impervious areas outside of the 15 foat no-build easement ta the project's on-site stormwater treatrnent system. The purpase af the no-buiid easement to be recorded against Lots 1-4 is to ensure no impervious surfaces are placed within 15 feet of creek top of bank that would then drain without treatment into the creek. Finger Avenue Nine-Lot Planned Development Project 7 Responses to FBIR Comments City of Redwood City lune 2012