AgdaPkt 2012-07-09 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

8.A. - Page 279 Finger Ave. Project FEIR Comments r�e �s,2a t z Page 8 of 12 Response G-38 My oxiginal �omment explained in detail how the four-lot alternative was designed as a straw man,in#ended to make it iook bad in comparison to the project. T'he response (on FEIR p. 61) #hat "this alternative was not developed for the �urpose of reducing or avoiding the project's effects ar in an attempt to meet most of the project objectives, rather this alterna#ive ...is a variation of the No Proje�t Alternative reflecting homes that could be constructed on each of the four lots...."[emphasis in orzginal]. �CEQA is crear that alternatives are intended to reduce impacts. To the degree that the develop t�nder existing zoning aikernative can reduce impacts, it is required to be designed ta do so. CEQA does not exernpt the No Project Alternative from the purpose of aiternatives, which is to reduce impacts. Further, it is clear that, through its CEQA review and deszgn review processes, the City would be highly unlikely to permit fhe alternative as described in the EIR and, therefore, the statement that it would be difficuYt for staff to implement the mitigations/design features identified in my previous comment is speculative, at best (and more likely false}, This version of the no-groject alternative is not consistent with CEQA requirernents for alternatives. Response G-39 This response again uses the impermissibly narrow project �bje�tives to find the 4-unit project infeasible. See my earlier comments regarding these objectives. Respor�se G-40 The original comment questioned why the 9-Iot alternatives A and B didn't include smaller houses that would reduce fhe project's impacts to visual quaZity, runoff, and mafure trees. The response that, "The DEIR does not disclose thaf the ho�se sizes themselves result in significant impacts requiring mitigation or t�at warranf consideration in alternatives" is nonsensical. The DEIR does acknowledge that increased impervious surfaces could produce increased yuantities of contarninated runoff compared to existing conditions if nat properly controlled and treated. Purther, the EIR acicxtowledges that the praJect 2ntensity of development would change the aesthetic character af the site, and the significance of this change is supported by numerous camments from �ocal residents. This is evidence enough that smaller houses (with sznaller footprints, less visua� prorninence, and Zess t�ree rernoval) would reduce fmpacts. This alternatzve continues to fail to rneet basic CEQA purposes for al#ernatives. Response G�4I This respvnse continues to say that 9 smalZer houses "are likely to se11 for less...w�ich could affect project feasibility". This statement, as with the original DEIR stakement, is still entirely unsupported by fact. The EIR provides no evidence as to what level of development is finaneia�ly feasible or infeasible. ]'ust because fhere could be less profit (although even this is speculative, as smaller homes presumab�y wou2d cost less to