PC 062707 - Laserfiche WebLink

consideration of aesthetic and visual resources for a project on a hillside setting needs to recognize hillsides and ridgelines as resource of public importance. The principal vehicle for evaluating the impacts of the project on aesthetics and visual resources is the representation … provided by the computer simulations.’ “In addition, they quoted State law as it pertains to CEQA guidelines: ‘EIR Adequacy: 15021. Duty to Minimize Environmental Damage: (a)(1) CEQA establishes a duty for public agencies to avoid or minimize environmental damage where feasible. (2) A public agency should not approve a project as proposed if there are feasible alternatives or mitigation measures absolutely that would substantially lessen any significant effects that the project would have on the environment. 15151. Standards for Adequacy of an EIR” An EIR should be prepared with a sufficient degree of analysis to provide decision-makers with information which enables them to make a decision which intelligently takes account of environmental consequences. …the sufficiency of an EIR is to be reviewed in the light of what is reasonably feasible. … The courts have looked not for perfection, but for adequacy, completeness, and a good faith effort at full disclosure. “The above standards have clearly not been met as they apply to Significant Environmental Impact A3: “Some homes appear undesirably prominent.” Not only have the standards been met, but staff has refused since the Draft EIR process to make the required “good faith effort at full disclosure.” To that end I have attempted to help out with the following photos: “Photo #1 is from the Visual Figure Reprint Portfolio. It is printed to the same size as in the portfolio that was presented to you. According to the numbers provided by the visual consultant in the appendix to the Draft EIR, this photo is intended to be viewed eight inches from the surface of your eye! No very useful to us senior citizens. “Photo #2 is the same photo blown up so that it can be accurately viewed from 20 inches. The determination of size was verified by going to the site and comparing the size of the tree to the left of the left house with the actual tree. The photo still has some distortion of distance due to the wide angle lens (the houses still appear slightly farther away), but it is as close as I could get on short notice. The house size is still the 6,700 sq. ft. average that the consultant said they used. But it gives ,ore usable detail for you to judge the prominence of these houses. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES June 27, 2007 Page 19 of 28