AgdaPkt 2012-09-10 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

8.A. - Page 462 COMMENT: This comment concerns FEIR Comment/Response J-19 involving baseline geologic conditions, naanely the observed topographic feature on Lots 3 and 4 that the comrnentor interprets as a slope failure and that the consuIting geologists and geotechnical engineers interpret as man-maae fill settlement. RESPONSE: FEIR Response J-19 was not stating that tha `anornalaus soil mass' does not exist, rather that MeCloskey and Stillrr�an disagtee that the soil mass is the result of a slope failure, hence their statement that they did not observe such a feature (i.e. a slope failure)to be present. Instead they interpret,based on their field observations and priar trenching,the soil mass to be frl] settlem�nt. Further,their statements about the utility of the topographic survey to abserve the soil mass have been apparently rnisundarstood; the topographic survey, which inclucled elevation paints to one ht�ndredth of a foot precision as noted in the comment, is not sufficient by itself to determine the o�igin of the feature,that determination must be informed by direct field abservations. COMMENT: This comment concerns F'ETR Comments/Respanses J-19 through J-22 involving baseiine geologic conditions. The commentor desires to see a report or other docurnent prepared by McCloskey and Stillman addressing the comments received on�he Draft EIR involving geologic conditions. RESPQNSE: Such a stand-alona report does not exist. McCloskey and Stillman were provided the comments received on the Draft EIR invoIving geologic conditions and tasked with returning ta the �eld ta investigate the additionaI faatures identifed in the comments and to prepare draft responses that were incorporated into the administrative draft FEIR. There is no original or additional source information provided beyond the speciftc FEIR responses�repared by McCloskey and Stillman. As with all the draf� responses provided by tha EIR consultant team (of v�+hich McCloskey and Stillman were members},the Ciiy, as the lead agency respansible for preparation of the EIR and responding to comments,reviewed the draft responses for adequacy and completeness prior to releasing the First Amendment/FinaI EIR. COMMENT: This comment concerns FEIR Comment/Response J-25 involving statistics provided by the commentar on neighborhood 1ot sizes, lot coverage, setbacks,and massing. RESPONSE: There was no bias in the Draft EIR's analysis of t�e project's compatibility with the neighborhood or visual impacts. The Draft EIR qualitativaly evaluates the project's effect on the existing setting, with the primary focus on the relationship beh�veen the character and features of the two homes that would primarily be visible from Fingar Avenue (Lots 7 and 8) and the character of the Finger Avenue streetscape. The quantitative data provided by the cammentor for existing homes and the proposed internal project homes are of limited usefulness when those homes are not currently visible (e.g. 90 Finger Avenue Finger Farmhouse)or will not be readily visible (e.g. the propased intarnal lots, as demonstrated by the photosim�lations separately provided by the commentor). COMMENT: Tlzis comment concerns FEIR Camment/Response J-26 involving neighborhood statistics and visual simulations provided by the commentor. RESPONSE: As stated in the Draft EIR and in responses provided in the First Amendment/Final �IR, it is a fact that homes that are setback ar obscured from c�irect view Finger Avenue Nine-Lot Planned Development Project 8 Responses to FEIR Comments City of Redwood City .Tune 2012