AgdaPkt 2012-09-10 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

8.A. - Page 458 contract to fihe City, and reflects the City's independent judgmant and analysis, The assertion that the �IR failed to assass the impacts of the project on community charactar 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 o�the fact that the City did not defer to the opinions expressed by some area resic�ents, rather the City conducted its own objective analysis to react� its independent conclusions, as is required of a tead agency under CEQA. The two CEQA cases cited in th�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 khe opinions of neighbors for its own judgment in evaluating a project's effects on community character. G-29 and G-30(Lot 3 Erosian Protection) • The EIR does not need to�resent the precise planting plan details for Lot 3 erasion protection prior to certification of the EIR and approval af the proj ect, rather as �xplained in the two responses, the EIR identifies the need for and methad af mitigating the erosian affecting Lat 3, and the precise planting datails to implernent the mitigation will be coordinated with CA DFG via a Streambed Alteration Agreement. CommentlResponse G-31 (tree pratection plan) ■ The Tree Survey includad 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 ]isYs a number of ineasures to be implemented as part of a Tree Protection, which have been incorporated as conditions of ptoject approval. Coxnment/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 projeet as viewed from Finger Avenue witl be the two homes facing Finger Avenue on lots 7 and 8, which are depicted in the Draft EIR and are tha subject of detailed discussion in both the land use and aesthetics sections. The photosirnulations also demonstrate that the remaining homes internal to the project will nat be readily visible from Finger Avenue,and therefore inclading speci�c buiIding elevations ar photosimulations of these homes is not integal to communicating the project's effects on its surroundings. Comments/Responses G-33 and G-34(visual and aesthetics} • The project would replace the existing 8$ Finger Avenue suburban ranch style home r7vith a new traditional style home that is�nare in keeping with existing historic horr�es in the neighborhood. The `semi-rural' aesthetic that is at issue in this comment is related to replacement of the 80 Finger Avenue hause that is currentIy set back over 140 feet from Finger Avenue and screened by mature dense tandscaping with a new house that woUld be readily visible from the street. The new Finger Avenue Nine-Lot Planned Development Project 4 Responses ta FETR Comments City of lZedwood City June 20i2