AgdaPkt 2012-07-09 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

8.A. - Page 273 Finger Ave. Project FEIR Comments .�une 15, 2012 Page 2 of 12 abrogates the City's responsibilifies as Lead Agency. CEQA Guidelines (Sect�on 15124{b)state, "Tite stat'ement of objectiz�es shoudd include t�te underlying purpose of the project." There is a major difference between the underlying purpose of a project (e.g., to develop housing on a site) and a detailed des�ription of the specifics of the project itself. The City, as Leaa Agency, has both the authority and responsibiliiy to filter out detailed "objectives" that are not ger�ane to the project's underlying purpose and serve only #o impermissibly Zimit the "feasibility" of alternatives. The City's response fails to understand that distinction, and instead takes the posit�on that the applicant can write the CEQA project objectives. We suggest that the City revierv a number of NEPA cases (Zdenkified in Remy, Thomas, Moose, and Manley's Guide to CEQA — 11�' edition, pp. 588-595, hereby'incorporated by reference) fhat are instructive on this issue. These cases are appZicable because NEPA has the sarne language regarding "underlying need" for a project as does CEQA. Specifical�y, the Project Objectives specify a 9-unit, detached, single-fami�y development with two homes facing Finger Avenue and several homes with private rear yards facing Cordilleras Creek, and two garage and twa driveway parking spaces on each of the homes. This is not a descriptian of the project's underlying purpase— it is merel� a summaty of the specifiC praposed praject. In fac#, these "objectives" fail to even mention the project's underl�ring purpose. The �'EIR's response to this comment (Response G-3) states "This comment appears to reach its own conclusions tha# the various alternatives are infeasible based on their inability ta meet project objectives" is inappropxiate, argumentative, and tangential to the comment. The response goes on to state that because the DEIR did not identify any significant unavoidabl� impa�ts, it need not consider broader alternatives that "would be broadly designed to fix" those impacts. This zs the exact argument that was rejected by the courts in the Laurel Heights T decision (Laurel Heights Improvement Association of San Francisco, Inc., v. The Regents Of The Uninersity Of California, Suprezne Court of California 47 Cal. 3d 376;December 1, 1988},which states: Finally, zve note that alternatives and mitigation measures have the same function -- diminishing or avoidirtg adverse environmental effecEs. The chief goal of CEQA fs mitigation or avoidRnce of ertvironmerttal harm. Ta argue that only mftigation meastsres need be discussed overIaoks the fact that alternatiues�re a type of mitigation. As detailed in our earlier letter, the importance of having a broader statement of project objectives and an accornpanying broader range af alternatives is apparent wk�en one views the relative impacts of the alternatives as described in the DEIR.1 The identified differences betweeri the Yroposed Project and Alternatives 3, 4, and 5 are minimal, with the primary differences being minor variations in tree removal, �reek setback and roadway design. These alternatives do not actvall.y reduce the substantial impacts of the Project. Tn a bizarre exexcise, Response to Comment G-3 goes an to "compare" the 1 It should be noted that the assessment of relative impacts af the alternatives is skewed,and several of the 9-unit alternatives appear to have been designed to result in greater impacts than necessary, resulting in impermissibte"straw men"alternatives.