Laserfiche WebLink
8.A. - Page 317 <br />8.A. - Page 75 <br />UPTfiOPOLITAN PLANNING GRoup <br />San Mateo County Assessor data (which is the saLmm of the EIR reIbmRmd figure of 2,141 square <br />rest) and the 2011 San Mateo County Assessor date as well as Multiple Lasting Service data provided <br />by the appkent and referred to as Appendix D of the Final EIR. The data source provided by the <br />apptJcent has not been verified; however Appendix D found an average home shy of 2, 302 square <br />beet. our analysis of the Data in Appendix D shoats that the neighborhood as defined in the EIR Is not <br />the same as provided In AppmWbt D, which appearx to compare hilldde kis In neighborhoods <br />throughout the City. This means that the data scannas cannot be dinmUy compared to one another. it <br />IS also worth noting that the residences In Appendix 0 purportedly exclude garages where the data <br />used from the two San Mateo CoLmty sources Moth Wuded.garage area. <br />The two San Mateo County Anessor data sciurcas From 7009 and 2013 show a difference everage in <br />homes sues of 502 square feet. Since these rVures are taken horn the same Assessor Pamels Is can <br />be assumed that this Is a result of the 2011 scums being more up to date than the 2009 source. Data <br />provided In Appendix C was stricken from the record when It was found to be basr3d on erroneous <br />measuramerrts of hWVV size based on satellite and/or aerial photo imagery which groasiy <br />Overestimated neighborhood hhorne sizes. The resultr of our Chart A shave that, depending on the <br />source, the average homes she In the neighborhood (again, the 30o foot radius n= the site) is <br />bebveen 2,141 square feet and 2,643 square Fact. <br />Theref m It Is our conclusion that tlhe methodakrgy used to develop the Akamative B analysis is <br />supped by the fact that the maximum home sizes under Alternative B are consistent with the goals <br />of reducing the level of anvironfrWw" Impacts to Wo are by limiting the amount of disturbed lend <br />area and prodding rnaxlmum floor areas that are compatible with the homes in the existing <br />neighborhood. however, given the nen information from the 2011 Assessor parcel data, a finding <br />could be made to support a slightly larger home size then presented in the OR Alternative B analysis, <br />and still be consistent with the neighborhood while IhrR;ing the Impacts of ground disturbing actWkft& <br />Sincerely, <br />"- t)r -Wj, <br />Fleecier Braxaay <br />Metropolitan planning Group I Senior Planter <br />Attachment; Chart A <br />570 dY46 aYenue spite 340 m0untaln view c.alifornia 94043 650 93R i i i i mpianrdngyroup.corn <br />