AgdaPkt 2012-07-09 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

8.A. - Page 370 contract to the City, and reflects the City's independent judgment and analysis. The assertion that the EIR failed to assess the impacts of the project on community character is baseless, as that is the primary issue discussed in DEIR Section 2.4 Land Use and Neighborhood Compatibility and Section 2.7 Visual Resources and Aesthetics. Rather the complaint appears to be based on the fact that the City did not defer to the opinions expressed by some area residents,rather the City conducted its own objective analysis to reach its independent conclusions, as is required of a lead agency under CEQA. The two CEQA cases cited in the comment concern the threshold question of whether neighbors' concerns regarding visual impacts are sufficient to invalidate a Negative Declaration and warrant preparation of an EIR; these cases do not mandate that a lead agency already preparing an EIR must substitute the opinions of neighbors for its own j udgment in evaluating a proj ect's effects on community character. G-29 and G-30 (Lot 3 Erosion Protection) • The EIR does not need to present the precise planting plan details for Lot 3 erosion protection prior to certification of the EIR and approval of the project,rather as explained in the two responses,the EIR identifies the need for and method of mitigating the erosion affecting Lot 3, and the precise planting details to implement the mitigation will be coordinated with CA DFG via a Streambed Alteration Agreement. Comment/Response G-31 (tree protection plan) • The Tree Survey included as FEIR Appendix A by Kevin Kielty, certified arborist, (see page 5 Summary discussion) specifically states, after surveying the trees and reviewing the development plans for potential impacts to the trees, that"if the following tree protection measures are carried out I believe that the trees to be retained should survive the planned development with little or no impacts to their overall health." The survey report then lists a number of ineasures to be implemented as part of a Tree Protection,which have been incorporated as conditions of project approval. Comment/Response G-32 (photo-simulations) • The photosimulations referenced in the comment reinforce the Draft EIR's conclusions that the primary visual and aesthetic impact of the project as viewed from Finger Avenue will be the two homes facing Finger Avenue on lots 7 and 8, which are depicted in the Draft EIR and are the subject of detailed discussion in both the land use and aesthetics sections. The photosimulations also demonstrate that the remaining homes internal to the project will not be readily visible from Finger Avenue, and therefore including specific building elevations or photosimulations of these homes is not integral to communicating the proj ect's effects on its surroundings. Comments/Responses G-33 and G-34 (visual and aesthetics) • The project would replace the existing 88 Finger Avenue suburban ranch style home with a new traditional style home that is more in keeping with existing historic homes in the neighborhood. The `semi-rural' aesthetic that is at issue in this comment is related to replacement of the 80 Finger Avenue house that is currently set back over 100 feet from Finger Avenue and screened by mature dense landscaping with a new house that would be readily visible from the street. The new Finger Avenue Nine-Lot Planned Development Project 4 Responses to FEIR Comments City of Redwood City June 2012