In Pocket Protectors v. City of Sacramento (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 903, area residents objected to the potential aesthetic impacts of a housing development. Their comments, based on their personal observations, pointed out the "'tunneling'" or "'canyoning'" effect of the houses, insufficient landscaping, possible intrusions into the adjacent greenbelt, "and the overall degradation of the existing visual character of the site from the excessive massing of housing with insufficient front, rear, and side yard setbacks." The court held the area residents observations sufficed to raise a fair argument about the potential of a significant aesthetic impact from the proposed project. (Ibid.)