Laserfiche WebLink
Petitioners complain that the definition of the Finger Avenue Project is too specific <br />and too narrow, and thus the project objections are too narrow, in that they call for a <br />specific number of homes to be built of a specific size range on lots of a specific size range. <br />For purposes of CEQA, this might be true # project alternatives had been rejected (or found <br />infeasible ") simply because they were not of the same number of homes, size of homes, or <br />size of lots. But that is not the case here. <br />The EIR considered various alternatives, including those subject to the prior <br />Settlement Agreement of the parties as to particular alternatives to be considered. Other <br />than the "no project" alternative (which was found not to meet the project objectives), the <br />EIR found that the various alternatives were feasible and met most of the project <br />objections, but that they were not "superior" to the proposed project from an environmental <br />standpoint. The EIR found only one alternative, called the Project With 25 Foot Creek <br />Setback Alternative (EIR Section 4.2.5), to be environmentally superior, and that was to <br />have nine lots, with nine homes, all built at least 25 feet from the top of the creek bank (in <br />compliance with the municipal 25 -foot setback), having a one -way horseshoe shaped <br />private road, which configuration would require on Lots 1-4 that the homes be smaller <br />and/or have less driveway. (2AR 278 -280.) The EIR found no showing that this <br />alternative would be economically infeasible. <br />In this regard, the Respondent approved and adopted an alternative plan for the <br />Finger Avenue Project which required that the homes on Lots 3 and 4 be built outside of <br />the creek setback, but allowed the homes in Lots 1 and 2 to be within the setback (which <br />would also save a 38 foot redwood tree on Lot #1). (2AR 278) <br />Petitioners assert that there was an inadequate range of alternatives. A fair reading <br />of the EIR does not support his contention. Not only were six alternatives specifically <br />29 <br />8.B. - Page 88