AgdaPkt 2012-07-09 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

8.A. - Page 234 a small planting area designated along the northern road entran�e.This square footage was added back proportionately to the indivic�ual lots to adjust for this amenity.This explains the differences in the numbers-they are not incorrect,but adjusted in the fashion explained to facilitate better comparison among properties. Response J-30 This respanse reiterating that aesthetic impacts internal to the project need not be evaluated in the EIR because there are not"existing"public views from those vantage points,sidesteps the yuestian of what the new project Urings to the overall aesthetic character of the neighbarhood. It is not appropriate to ignore this impact, as public access will be available within the project once the project is completed. Response j-32 The FEIR claims that the homes an lot 7 and 8 hav'e Fa�ade widths of approximately 40 feet and that this dimension is similar to those of the existing primary homes on the subject site. If these refer#0 88, 80 and 50 Finger,the FEIR fails to acknowledge that 88 Finger,with similar fa�ade width,has only single story rnassing and is set back an average of 3S ft from Finger Ave, [as opposed ta 15'for the new homes). 80 and 50 Finger are set back 130 ft and 215 ft respectivel}r From Finger Ave.-their fa�ade impacts aren't even comparable to the lvt 7 and $ homes. If the FEIR is referring to 54,40 and 3b Finger,those homes have fa�ade widths of hetween 24- 28',considerably narrower than the proposed homes. The data,when one looks at al�aspects of home placement and setting,clearly shows that the lat 7 and lot 8 homes are out of scale for any street-fronting home in the neighborhood.These distinctions are clearly evidenced by the referenced visualizations discussed above.The subjective opinions of the FEIR preparers in tiheir analysis are nat based on substantial evidence supported by objective facts. Response J-33 Comment J-33 refers to comparative lot densities. The response references lot sizes, and conformance with R-1 standards, It is non-responsive to the comment and does nat address aesthetic issues. Conformance with R-1 district starfdards daes not imply compatible aesthetics -especially as the project per se does not conform to R- 1 district standards -which is why a PD permit is being saught. The project is discretionary and must receive approval in part based on its hai°mony with the existing neighborhood.The aes'thetic irnpacts must be evaluated,then,independent of znning code standar�s in order to facilitate that determinatio n. Responses J-37,]-38 The FEIR considers our comments regarding streetscape elements that do not conform to the neighborhood and the requirement far additional signage facing Finger Ave. as minor aesthetic concerns that don't constitute a significant impact. On their awn,that may be trtte looking at these issues independently,but like other aspects of the project's impacts on the overall visual aesthetics, these"minor" elements contribute to a development form and characteristic that overall