Laserfiche WebLink
8.A. - Page 323 <br /> canstitutes a major aesthetic impact taken in the cantext afexisting canditiuns and <br /> c�aracter of the site and surroundings. <br /> �tespons�s p-9�0 4;h�^augh J-5U <br /> These respanses relate to our cammenis regarding the DEIR's anaiysis oFthe <br /> Creekside Green atternative, <br /> R�s�►onse J-42, {regarding Bfologic impacCs)acknowledges that the Creet�side <br /> Green alternative wiIl remove fewer trees.But then somehow implies that it will <br /> require simiiar Tree Protection,as if snmehow this matters in e�aIuatin�w�ether <br /> Creekside Green reduces impacts,D��sn't the simple fact�hat the Creekside Green <br /> Alternative will remove fewer frees show clearly that it is less impactfvl than tha <br /> project in this ragard? <br /> :�e�panse J-4�&(�ydrolfl�y and prain�g�) Th�response eorr�ctly notes that the <br /> Creekside Green alternative decreases impervious surfaces near t�e creek and <br /> provides a clear means for incorporating L1D stormwater design. Does t�is not shaw <br /> that this alternative reduces impacts ovsr the proposec�project in this regard? <br /> Respo�se j-46{�.���TJse�ox��a�lbility a�au A,estii�tics] The FEiR response <br /> refers to the diseussion in the DE1R on the aesthetic impacts of tl�e project,whrch <br /> identi�'ies garage views and mass�ng of th�interior homes as seen frorn Finger <br /> Avenue.The FEIR response simply ignores our comment that the views descrabed <br /> GANN(]T b�seen from Finger Avenue because they are screened behind the new <br /> project hame on Finger (7],existiztg resit3ences,and veg�tative screening as shown <br /> on the plan.Their argurnent is not supparted by the facts af the project desigri and <br /> imp�ies an impact for which there is na supporting evidence. <br /> Res�o�tse J-49 (�rafltic/Par��ing)The response correctly notes that t�e Creekside <br /> Greean alternativa adds public parking spaces to the street,whereas the project <br /> eliminates 6 spaces.The EIR claims there is no significant impact to parking capacity <br /> as a result o�'this lnss,because excess parking capacity currently exists on the stree�. <br /> This response and the EIR itss�f fails to acknnv�rledge or evaluate resident concerns <br /> abaut parking impacts ta tra�!`ic and genera[rr�aneuverability an Finger Avenue <br /> (expressec� numerous times in the record ar�d asked ta be studied�and the potential <br /> �'ar increased future parking c�emand shoul$properties an El Camino Real (�-1/2 <br /> bloc�c from the site) be redeveloped under the new Mixed-Use Corridor zoning that <br /> will be designated there e�nder the new General Plan. <br /> 50,even �haugh the FE1R preparers acicnowledge ti�at: <br /> 1) Creekside Green saves more trees than the project <br /> 2) Creekside Green contains less impervious surfac�ng within the 25'creek <br /> setback zane <br /> 3] And Creekside Green preserves publfc pa�king capacity w}rereas the project <br /> reduc�s public parking capacity- <br />