AgdaPkt 2011-08-22 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

8.A. - Page 75 - > , _ � «. n . . , .. �"' l.,, s�b i� i 9 n . a � '� a'3 ..,.s �.d �i` �n ��e.; r;��i��r� ._.;,- url��r� pl flf�l'i!)f� � � San Mateo County Assessor data (which is the source of the EiR referenced figure of 2,i41 sq�are feet) and the 2011 San Mateo County Assessor data as well as Multlple Lisfing Service cfata prbvided by the applicant and referred to as Appendix D of the Final EIR. Th� data source pro�ided by the applt=ant has not been verifEed; however Appendix D found an average home size of 2, 3Q� square feet. Our analysis of the Data in Appendix 17 shows that tF�e ne�ghborhood as defined in the EIR is �at the same as provfded €n Appendix D, which appears to compare hillside lots in neighborhoods throughout the City. This means that the data sources cannot be directly compared to one another. It Is also worth noting that #he r�sidences in Appe�dix D purportedly exclude garages where the data used from the two San Mateo County spurtes both Inc�uded garage area. Tf�e twa San Mateo County Assessor data sources from 2009 and 2011 show a difference average in homes sizes of 502 square feet, Since these figures are taken from the same Assessor Parcels is can 6e assumed that this is a result of the 2011 source being more up to date than the 2009 source. Data provided in Appendix C was stricken from the record when it was found to be based on erroneous measurements of house size based on satellite and/or aerial photo imagery which grossly overestimated �eighborhnod horne sizes. The results of our Chart A show that, depending on the source, the a�erage horrtes size in the neighborhood (again, the 3fld foot radius from the site) is between z,141 square feet end 2,643 square feet. Therefore, it is our conclusion that the methodology used to de�elop the Alternative B analysis is supported by t�e fact that the maximum home sizes under Alternative B are consistent with the goals of reducing the level of envfronmental impacts Yo the site by limfting ti�e ar»ount of disturbed �and are� and praviding maximum floor areas that are compatible with the homes in the existing neighborhood. Howe�er, given the new informa#ion from the 20i1 Assessor Parcel data, a finding could be made to support a slightly larger hame size than presented in the EIR Alternative e�nalysis, and still be consistent with thE neigl�borhood whlle limiting the impacts of ground tiisturbing ac#Ivities. Sincerely, .,� Heather Bradiey " Metropolitan Planniny Group � Senior Pianner Attachment: C�tart A 579 cly�e avenue suite 34Q , mountain vic�w califc,rni:� 94043 i 850 93� 1111 i mpla�ir�ingyroup.com