AgdaPkt 2009-08-03 spc, clsd and jnt

Browse Search

7A Page 18 the streetscape design.Furthermore one-��avay traffic on the road would likely require sYgnage facing Finger Ave.,compxomising the visuai aesthetics on�ie street:T.mpacts on the uxban forest on the si#e are unchanged. Discussion A�our presenta�inn before the Commission on Feb. 10,we provided additional empirical.data on the home sizes,nurnber of stor.ies,lot coverages,front setbacks, etc.,in the surrounc�in�neighbarhood,that ci�arly argue against the Cit�s opinivn that the proposed developmenti is similar in scaie to the exis�ing neighborhood.The City has conducted no formal evaluation of the massing and densit�issues of this proj�ct to justify their conclusion.In addit�on,we pointed out t�rat in the context of an apprvved subdivfsian,Redwovd City's tree protecti.on pol�c�es hawe nv teeth- there is no requirement to save trees under the law,so these policies offer no real protection,as implied by the Cit�y's response.There is a requirernent to replace trees that are retnoved,but the proposed repiacement trees do nat maintain the exis�ing unique character af the site-�his is precisely our point in regards to th�site degradation.UnforCunately,the intensity of the proposed development is not compatibie wfth the kinds of large trees that are characfieristf c af the site,.which is why the same trees as exist present�y are not being proposed as replacements. There is Iittl.e doubt that t,he new deueiopment vvil]permanently�liminate a Iarge portian af an ur�an forest v�hose character is unique within the Ci�y. In addition ta vur presentarion,�he Commission received a IeLter�rom attorney , Susan Brandt-Hawtey,a noted CEQA expert,who poin�s out that"as to aesthetics, tihe courts are ciear tk�at the thresholds are subjective a�the initiai stage of consider�ng whe�her an EIR is requir�d;the`sensitive receptor'language referenced in the City's responses cannot aiter the�air argument st~andard".She taCer points to a case where the Cour�set aside a CEQA guideiine that would allow ci�ies to set �hreshalds of significance Co trump a fair argument It is clear that,at this stage af the anatysis,the Gity cannot arbitrarily set standards far signifi+cance--awr observations and conctusions based vn the facts of this project carry as much weight as the Cit,�s in this regard.The City,in fact,did nat support their opinions with � factual data.They dfd,hvwever,admit that there would be aesthetic.impacts frvm this developm.ent�IVe clear�y disagree vn whether the nega�.ve aest�eric frn�acts af this projee�are significant;an EIR is therefare required. Although we believe s-�rongty that our conc�usions are reasaned and well fuunded, we decided to seek the opinion af Garavagt�a Archi�ecture,Inc. (www.g�a°avag�ia,com�,a firm experienced in e�aluating historic resources, community aesthetics and urban design to provide us with additional perspec�ive vn this project and ir.s potent�al impacCs.Their concIusions(at-�ached)as to the nei�h�orhood character and its contrast with the proposed prvject are similar t� ours.'They�no�e�at overall massing of the project has not been adequate�y addressed and that the s�ale ofthe development could cons�iti.�te a dramatic impact vn the overall character ofthe neighborhood.Garavaglia furth�er concludes,"until these impac�s have been more fulIy analyzed,there is the potential for sign�ficant