AgdaPkt 2012-09-10 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

8.A. - Page 320 Res�onse D-2s This response is to our comtnent and assaciated atta�hments that provide objective statistics on neighborhood lat sizes,lot caverages,setbacks and statist�cs that provide some aneasure of massing,The response notes that our data and methodolagy have not been adopted by the City for use and th�y have no obligation to evaluate it� Hovvever,the"objective"eva�uation of visual irnpact the�ity claims to have cond�cted uses Iittle,if any,yuantita�ive criteria for assessing impact anc� refuses to acknowledge that,beyond o�eralt home size-setback distances,lot coverages,home configuration,flpen space,and massing contribute significantly to the overall visual eharacter of a neighborhood.We have offered a complete set af data far eva�uatior�,in whatever manner the City may choose to use it,and yet they have chosen not to consider using any comprehensive informatic�n tn their evatuation.This cisarty shows an unwillingness to cansider relevant data ir�making their evaluatiun,Selectively deciding what informatian ta cansider for their analysis, focusing only on horne size and whether tlae proposed structures conform to R-1 standards ignores the unique character of the sit�and neigh�arhaac�anci is ciear evidence af bias in the analysis, R�sponse)-26 The FEIR claims that hames that are setback or obscured fram direct view from the s#reet do r�ot eont�ibute significantly to the overall character of the street.This cornr�ent is not supparted by data ar iogic--the averall character af a neighborhoad invo�ves al�af the factors abave.To suggest t�at replacir�g a mod�rate-sfzed home set hack far from the street with a larger home set a zninimal setback fram the street -even i�c�nsistent with overall district standards,will NOT have a significant impact Qn the characfier ofthe street makas no sense,especially when the exis�in� character imparts a rural feel and nne oFamp�e open space. This is more than a distinctive change,bu�on�that degrades the existing character of the neighborhoad.This can be clearly illustrated with th�visualizations w�created For the existing and proposed conditions anc�sent via separate mailing to SCaff and the Planning Commission.Those visualizations can also be obtained here: �1rt}?S:��C1QC5.google.co�nJopen?id�OB0uN1X8MiGKIT1p1r,MWIySTUtYjA For example,figure 2 af the above document shows that k�e rnodest ane-story horne at 8$ Finger Ave.,currently sit�ated next ta a broad open-space swath (the front yaard af the 80 Fin�er h�rne}is replaced with two homes with,much broader facades and two-story massing.Furthermore,t�e presence af the roa�iway separating the two hornes ailaws the even lon�ger side fa�ade of the Lot 7 hame to be�iewabie from the sarne vantage point. �igures 3,4,and 5 a�sa clearly shaw how eli�inatian af the deep setback at 84 Finger unalterabIy degrades Che unique character af the north side of Fing�r Avenue at this location. The justification for not co�sidering the visual imgacts interior to the groject hy ciaiming that the existing private groperry does nat eontribute to e�sting public views,igz�ores th�faet that the n�w�evelvpment will be publicly accessed and the new ham�s will he a part of the Finger Ave. neighborhoad.It is i nappropriate not to