AgdaPkt 2012-07-09 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

8.A. - Page 235 constitutes a major aesthe�ic impact taken in the cantext of existing conditians and character of the site and surrounaings. Respanses J-4Q through J-50 These responses relate to our comments regarding the DEIR's analysis of the Creekside Green alternative. Respanse J-42, {regarding Biologic impacts) acknowledges that the Creekside Green alternative will remove fewer trees. But then somehow implies that it will require similar Tree Protection, as if sornehow this matters in e�aluating whether Creekside Green reduces impacts. Dnesn't the simple fact that the Creekside Green Alternative will remove fewer trees show clearly that it is less impactful than the praject in this regard? Response J-44 (Hydrology and Drainage] The response correctly notes that the Creekside Green alternative decreases impervious surfaces near the creek and provides a clear means for incorparating LID stormwater design. Does this not show that this alternative reduces impacts over the proposed project in this regard? Response J-46 (Land Use Compatibility and Aesthetics) The FEIR response refers to the discussion in the DEIR on the aest�etic impacts of the project,which identifies garage views and massing of the interior homes as seen from Finger Avenue.The FE1R respanse simply ignores our comment that the views described CANNOT be seen from Finger Avenue because they are screened behinc�the new project home on Finger [7), existing residences, and vegetative screening as shown on the plan.Their argument is nat supported by the facts of the project design and implies an impact for which there is no supporting evidence. Respanse J-49 (Traffic/Parking) The response correctIy notes that the Creekside Green alternative adds public parking spaces to t�e street,whereas the praject eliminates 6 spaces.The EIR claims there is no significant impact to parki�g capacity as a result of this loss,because excess parking capacity currently exists on the street. This response and the EIR itself fai�s to acknowledge or evaivate resident concerns about parking impacts tn traffic and general maneuverability on Fi�ger Avenue (expressed numerous times in the recard and asked ta be studied) and the potential far increased future parking demand should properties an �1 Camino Real (�1/2 block from the site) be redeveloped under the new Mixed-Use Carridor zoning that will be designated there under the new General Plan. So, even though the FEIR preparers acknowledge that: 1) Creekside Green saves more trees than the project 2) Creekside Green contains less impervious surfacing within the 2S' creek setback zone 3] And Creekside Green preserves public parking capacity whereas the project reduces public parking capacity-