Laserfiche WebLink
8.A. - Page 280 <br /> Finger Ave. Project FBIR Comments <br /> June 15, 2022 <br /> Page 9 of 12 <br /> construct) does not renaer an alternative infeasible, or even potentially infeasible, absent <br /> evidence. <br /> Respanse G-43 <br /> In response to the request For an alternative with reduced-bulk houses, this response <br /> states, "The second stories would need to be expanded to recoup house area to <br /> accommodate sc�uare footage lost to redt��ed buiIding footprints due to increased <br /> setbacks..." needed to meet creek setback requirements. Nowhere in fhe document are <br /> house area reyuirements for feasibiiity established. What the EIR is apparently saying is <br /> that because the applicant desires to build very large houses on small lots on this site, he <br /> is guaranteed the right to build very Iarge houses, even if they don't comply with the <br /> Ciiy's setback requirements. Therefore any alternative that reauces the size of those <br /> houses, even to comply with City regulations, is unacceptable to the EIR. This appraach <br /> is both unsupported by any evidence or fact, and prohibited by CEQA, under which <br /> alternai�ves must be designed fo reduce impacts. Neither CEQA nor the state planning <br /> la�r allow the City to guarantee an applicant whatever house size he rec�uesfs. This <br /> response underscores the alternative section's complete failure to comprehend/address <br /> CEQA's most basic requirements. <br /> Response G-44 <br /> This response again states that if the creek setbacks are to be rnaintained, then parking <br /> apron depths must be reduced, entireiy omitting any consideration of reauCing the size <br /> of the houses instead. T'his refusal to even consider obvious mitigat�on affarded by <br /> reduced house sizes is impermissible under CEQA be�ause it rejects clearly feasible <br /> alternafives that would reduce project impacts in favor of ones that wauld increase <br /> impacts. <br /> Response G-45 <br /> This respanse is baffling. It claims that the 25-foot creek setback 9-unit alternative <br /> "would result in incremenfa�ly reduced irnpacts compared to the project in the areas of <br /> geology, hydrology, and water quality....", after saying earlier that the project would <br /> have no such impacts. It further says t�at this alternative was not intended ta reduce <br /> visual impacts because the EIR faund no signi,ficant impacts to those resources. But the <br /> EIR also found no significant impacts to the other tapics listed above, so why treat <br /> visual impacts differently in the alternatives analysis? Is the EIR saying that there is no <br /> impact to visual yuality that couldn't be reduced by an alternati^�e? <br /> It is instructive that this response states "8ecause the DEIIt found the project would not <br /> result in sigr�ificant visua2 impacts....none of the alternatives attempted to substaniially <br /> alter the placement of the new homes facing Finger Avenue." Leavixtg aside the visual <br /> impacts associated vvith ather houses proposed far the site, including fhose related to <br /> kree removal and overall increased development density of the site, this statement <br /> identifies the crux of the failure of the docurnent with respect to consideration of <br /> aestheHcs. It plainly refuses to accept any evidence of advexse aesthetic change, and <br />