Laserfiche WebLink
7A <br /> Page 17 <br /> DISCUSSION OF I�SUES RELATED T(3 THE M�TI�ATED NEGATIVT�. <br /> DECLARATI4N <br /> 6.1 Aesthetics{c�--"5���ta�tiaily�egrade the e�t�g.visua�i charac�er or qualiiy af <br /> the site and its surrvundings?" <br /> Reca� �. <br /> In our initial commen#s to the IS/MNb,we presented data relating to the character- <br /> defining featur�s of our ueighborhood and concluded�hat in t�ie cont�ext of the unique and <br /> appealing visual c�E�ara�;�ristics of the site and th�surrounding neighborhood,�hhe�e is <br /> substantial evidence that the proposed.project would significantly degradet�e visual <br /> character or qualit�y of the sit�and its surraundings.This canclusion is based on�he stark <br /> coflirasi�n t�i�ma�sing,scale,and d�,sign af the new ho�nes as c�m�ared ta�e curr�rt site <br /> and s�xrrounding neighborhood,the ch�nges�o t�he streetscape and design of$�he private <br /> road,t�e loss of a large pexcenta,ge of�e mature native adnd classic urban fores�,�nd the <br /> large percentage of the Finger Park Tza�ct i�hat wovJd be redevelop�d v�i�this graject.This <br /> signific�r�t in��act is unavoidable+avi�out sigtuficant project moc�fication and thus woutd <br /> require an EIlt. <br /> The City,in i�s Response to Cammen#s,defended its conctusion of na significant impact, <br /> based on t�.e following: ` <br /> 1) The Cify's det:ex�mination.of u�pact is based on the conbext of the existing conditions <br /> af t�xe project site a�nd�urroundings and whet��r that condition is cvnsidered <br /> c<�+�I`�]CL]�aZ��7 Sf".I]S1�IVB". <br /> 2� The proposed prvjec�wvuld conrinue the streetscape and replace and add <br /> residential homes to an e�snng urban deveioped residential neighborhood <br /> and thus would not"degrade"the quality of Che exifsting�isual char�cter of <br /> the neighborhood since the project vvould continue the same type of iand <br /> uses. <br /> 3} Th�proposed houscs would be similar in seale to some oth�r homes aiready uz the <br /> neighborhood <br /> 4) The project will be subject to review by tlie Architec#ural Review Committee <br /> during the entitlement process <br /> 5) Redwoad City policies and regulations rega�rding tr�ee remo�!al are sufficient to <br /> address the seale of tree removal <br /> Update since the Feb.10 hearing <br /> Recent design changes by the applicant as.shown on the Vesting Ten#a€ive Map dated 4- -��. <br /> 7-09 do not materially improve the aesthetic impact of the project.The designs of the <br /> h�mes are unebanged,save a few�unor modifications.The lot 2 home and garage are <br /> reduced in size a tota.l of I05 sq:ft,but�his change ac�urs at the rear af the home to <br /> accommodate a 15'rear setback from the creek,an.d the massing at the front of�he home <br /> is actua.Iiy inereased.The homes an lats 3 and�are moved forward slightly,which <br /> reduces their front s�backs and consequenfly in�reases the mass�►g of.these homes <br /> slightly as vieweci froxn tbe road�ay.'The roa.c�way de�iga zs modified tn in.clude concrete <br /> pavers in the roactway to delineate a peciestrian wal�way.This wall�way daes not <br /> ' i.utegrat�in�to the Finger A�.ve.sidewall�and thus does not improve the compatibility of <br />