AgdaPkt 2012-07-09 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

8.A. - Page 232 Response J-25 This response is to our cnmment and associated attachments that provide objective statistics an neighborhood lat sizes,lot caverages,setbacks and stiatistics that provide some measure of massing.The respanse notes that our data and methodology have not been adopted by the City for use and they have no obligation to evaluate it. However,the"objective"evaluation of visual impact the City claims ta have canducted uses little,if any,yuantitative criteria for assessing impact and refuses to acknowledge that,beyond overall hame size-sethack distances,lot caverages,home configuration,open space,and massing contribute significantly to the overall visual character of a neighborhaod.We have offered a complete set of data for evaluation,in whatever manner the City may choose to use it,and yet they have chosen not to consider using any comprehensive information in their evaluation.This clearly shows an unwillingness to c�nsider relevant data in making their evaluation. Selectively deciding what information to cansider for their analysis, focusing only on home size and whether the proposed structures canform to R-1 standards ignares the unique character of the site and neighbarhood and is clear evidence of bias in the analysis. Response]-26 The FEIR claims that homes that are setback or obscured fram direct view from the street do not contribute significantly to the overall character of the street.This comment is not supparted by data or lagic—the overall character of a neighborhaod invalves all of the factors abave.To suggest that replacing a moderate-sized home set hack far from the street witYt a larger hame set a minimal setback fram the street —even if consistent with overall district standards,will NOT have a significant impact on the character of the street makes no sense,especially when the existing character imparts a rural feel and nne of ample open space. This is more than a distinctive change,but one that degrades the existing character of the neighbarhoad.This can be cleariy illustrated with the visualizations we created For the existing and proposed canditions and sent via separate mailing to Staff and the Planning Commission.Those visualizations can also be obtained here: https://docs.google.com/apen?id=0B0uN1X8MiGK1T1pkNWIySTUtYjA For example,figure 2 of the above document shows that the modest one-story home at 88 Finger Ave.,currently situated next to a broad open-space swath (the front yard of tl�e 80 Finger hame] is replaced with two homes with much broader facades and two-story massing. Furthermore,the presence of the roadway separating the two homes allows the even longer side fa�ade of the Lot 7 home to be viewable from the same vantage point. Figures 3,4,and 5 a�so clearly show haw elimination of the deep setback at 80 Finger unalterably degrades the unique character of the narth side of Finger Avenue at this location. The justification for not considering the visual impacts interior to the project by claiming that the existing private property does not contribute to existing public views,ignores the fact that the new deveiopment will be publicly accessed and the new homes will be a part of the Finger Ave. neighbor�ood. It is inappropriate not ta