AgdaPkt 2012-07-09 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

8.A. - Page 276 Finger Ave. Project FEIR Comments June 15, 20I2 Page 5 of 12 Response G-26 The commen# addressed the DETR's fai�ure to address the projecYs impact on community character. The response states that community character is subjective and f that the City is aware of the neighbors' opinions rvkth respect to aesthetics. The question � then is, why didn't the City consider the neighbors' docixmented concems as substantial evidence and, at a minimum, document disagreeing experts in the EIR? Even that approach woutd be inadequate because this is not a merely case of disagreeing experts. In fact, the EIR failed entire�y fo assess the impacts af the project on community character. SpecificalIy, it refused to expand the project maps to show community context, refused to provide objective pho#osimu�ations, (instead incorporating the applicant's subjective drawings), #ailed to adequately consider the loss of mature trees, and in the absence of this information, ulfimately concluded, that City staff have more experience on design matters than do fhe neighbors. This fails to eomply with CEQA case lavv directive established in Pocket Protectors and Ocean View Estates decisions, and other CEQA case law (7'he pocket ProEectors v, City of Sacramento, 124 Ca1.App.4th903; Ocean View Esfates Homeawners Association, Inc. v. Montecito Water District, I16 Ga2.App.4th396.) that give great weight to lacal residents' opinions on aesthetic issues. (Note that o�'er 751oca1 residents submifted signed statements specifically calling aut the loss of aesthetic arnenities as major concerns). It also fails to comply with CEQA's requirements that conclusions be supported by substantial factual evidence. Finally, concluding that the I'roject's aesthetic impact is insignificant in light of substantial evidence to the contrary results in the document failing to meet CEQA's basic purpose, namely protection of the enviranment. Responses G-29 and G-30 These responses aeaZ with concerns that the impacts of acknowledged angoing erosion to potential new houses situated very close to the stream-bank have not been shown ta be mit�gated. The responses cite case Iaw stating that if an agency has evaluated significant impacts and identifiec� means of mitigating khem it need not commit in the EIR to a particular course of mitigafiion and punt development of mitigation to future design and agency permitting. This case law is not applicable to the comment because the cornment was that the �IR failed to identify any real mitigation, but just referenced ideas in a generic handbook. Therefare the EIR hus not identified measures that would mttigate the impact. Tf this were a programmatic�IR on a concepfival plan, then perhaps a conceptua]approach to mitigation might be appropriate—however this is a very discrete plan with detailed house footprints, therefore it is essential that detailed mitigation measures be identified in the document so that their effectiveness and feasibility can be assessed. Further, in Response G-30, substituting CDFG future pexmit requirements for CEQA analyses fails to recognize that CEQA is a separa�e environmental protection law from CDFG's 5treambed Alteration perrnit and can impose greater mitigation than that permit, if appropriate.