AgdaPkt 2012-09-10 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

8.A. - Page 464 RESPONSE: The visuai simuIations provided by the commentor reinfarce the Draft EIR's analysis that introducir�g two private roadway access points to replace the three current driveways serving 50, 80, and $8 Finger Avanue homes would not substantialty degrade the visual character of the streetscape. COMMENT: This comment concerns FEIR CommenYJResponse J-42 involving tree removal impacts associated �uvith the Creekside Green Alternative. RESP�NSE: The response ic�entifies that ifthis altarnative vc+ere 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 kitled during canstruction. As this altemative removes fewer trees than proposed by the project,the tree protection plan would be focused on fewer trees overall. The Draft EIR disclases this alternative causes reduced tree impacts than the project, However, none of the trees removed by the project was considered a signifcant, irreplaceable biologic ar aesthetic resource tY�at warranted preservation in an alternative{see FEIR Response G-3}, and sa preservation of any specific tree(s)was nat an explicit focus of any of the alternatives. COMMENT: This comment cancerns FEIR Comment/Respanse .T-�4� invalving the stormwater design provided by the Creekside Green Alternative. RESPONSE: As acknawledged 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 rec�uired ta implement LID stormwater measures in conformance with RWQCB requirements. COMMENT: This comment cancerns FEIR Comment/Response 7-46 invoiving views of the new detached rowhouses includecf in the Creekside Green Aiternative. RESPONSE: The commentor's assertion concerning the limited visibility of these units, "because they are screened behind the new projact home on Finger Avenue, existing residences, and vegetative screening"precisely captures the Draft EIR's ra�ionale for concIuding the project's proposed new h4mes internal to the site(Lots 1-6, 9)wou�d 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 Fingar Avenue. COMMENT: This cornment concerns FEIR Comment/Response J-49 involving public parking availability. RESPONSE: The potential for future increased parking demand on Finger Avenue shoUld properties on E1 Camino Real redevelop with new mixed-us� ar intensified comrnercial uses as envisioned under the General Plan would be evaluated in the context of the development application raview for those future tnixed-use atid/or commercial projects,taking into account the specific nature of each proposed project, and the provision of aff-street parking Finger Avenue Nine-Lot Planned Developrr�ent Project 1D Responses to FEIR Comments City af Redwood City June 2012