AgdaPkt 2012-07-09 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

8.A. - Page 281 Finger Ave. Project FEIR Comments .1une 15,2012 Page i Q of 12 fherefore refuses ta even consider reducing that impacf (be it significant or less than significant). The portion of this response regarding the tree survey alsa is comple#ely unresponsi�re. It refers the reader fo the riew iree survey' for a discussion of impact significance, but that survey contains zero discussion of the significance of the project impacts on trees, In fact, the referenced surve�r does not, as claimed, "confirmed in his opinion that trees to be pxeserved in p�ace can be expected to co-exist wit� the new development and therefore there is nat a need to address this impact in an alternative...". In fact, the Kielty tree survey does not include any assessment of the likelihood of tree survival with the praject, nor did the original survey. The response is fa�se and remains unsupported by evidence. Respanse G-4S This response reiterates the previously addressed unsupported economic and seismic discussion of"issues that could affect feasibility"with respect ta t�e proposed Creekside Green Alternative. The EIR response provi�es no evidence supporting Yhe infeasibility of this alternative, or even that the claimed "issues that could affect feasibiliiy" are, in fact, real. The response also claims that it need not analyze the feasibility of retention of the existing structure as propased in the alternative because fihat structure is not gexmane to project impacts alsa is disingenuous, given that tHe EIR previously claims that potent�al damage to t�at structure in an earthquake is a reasan to consider other alternatives infeasible. Response G-47 See our previous comments regarding photosimulations. Response G-50 This response #ails to provide any information regarding how the project would fit in with the City's General Plan's stated goal o£providing a range of housing types. It does not answer the simple question of, "are rmore high-income houses needed in this area, at the expense of mid-incozne houses". The statement t�-iat "the project contributes to a varied supply of housing..." is vague and unsupported b� any ana2ysis that this higher- income housing is needed in the City at the expense af the existing Iower-income hausing. Concluaions The net effect of all of the above-referenced issues is an FEIR that fails to adequately identify the project purpose and need, alternatives, and environmental impacts. Equally problematic, the ETR continues to present a s�Cewed assessment af the relative impacts of alternatives, tree remova�, and aesthetics, and, in sv doing, arbitrarily omits relevant expert opinion or fact that is fundamental to the decision-makers' understanding of the full extent of the potential environmental irnpacts of the project.