AgdaPkt 2012-07-09 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

8.A. - Page 371 home on Lot 7 is the subject of a simulation provided in the Draft EIR because it is one of two homes that will be readily visible from Finger Avenue. The significance of this visual change is discussed at length in the Draft EIR, and found to be less than significant. Comment/Response G-36 (No Project Alternative - e�sting structures and geology) • The Draft EIR's discussion highlights the older structures present on the site were not built to modern seismic codes (which is a fact), and therefore, compared to protection afforded by new construction, residents occupying these structures are at increased risk during an earthquake (a reasonable inference). The Draft EIR's No Project Alternative discussion is related to the effects of leaving the site in its current condition, and the Draft EIR does not make the leap (as suggested by the comment) to conclude this alternative is in fact infeasible by speculating about the economic (in)feasibility of retrofitting existing structures. Rather, if the project does not go forward as envisioned under the No Project Alternative, and the e�sting structures are retained indefinitely, seismic retrofits may or may not be undertaken by current or future owners depending upon their interest and ability to make the investment. Comments/Responses G-38 and G-39 (Four Lot R-1 Zoning Alternative) • Contrary to the comment's assertion, CEQA does not require the No Project Alternative to be designed in a way that avoids or lessens a project's environmental impacts. The No Project Alternative identifies what is anticipated to happen should the project not go forward, i.e. remain in its current developed state or redevelop according to R-1 zoning regulations under a straightforward subdivision process with four lots and potentially up to eight units (a primary and secondary unit on each lot). Comments/Responses G-40 and G-41 (Nine Lot Standard Setbacks and Roadway Alternative A) • As explained in detail in FEIR Response G-3, the project's environmental impacts requiring mitigation (cultural resources,hydrology, geology,biology, visual/aesthetics, and air quality) do not directly arise from the project's size or design,rather these impacts result from site conditions which would be affected to some degree by any development on the site, and therefore not susceptible to substantial reduction or avoidance by an alternative. Contrary to the comment's assertion,the EIR is not required to provide evidence of the economic feasibility or infeasibility of the alternatives it evaluates for the decision-makers consideration. If an alternative was being eliminated from further consideration in the EIR on the basis of economic infeasibility,the substantial evidence to support that conclusion would need to be included in the EIR, but the only two alternatives rejected from further consideration in the Draft EIR(Location Alternative and Five-Lot R-1 Zoning Alternative) are rej ected for other reasons, as explained in the Draft EIR. Comments/Responses G-43 and G-44 (Project with 25 Foot Creek Setback Alternative) • The Draft EIR is not saying that the houses could not be reduced in size under this alternative for it to be feasible,rather the discussion identifies how the square footage lost to an increased creek setback for Lots 1-4 could be re-gained(if desired) by increasing the second story floor area and/or reducing the front setbacks. The lot sizes are not"small", rather they are at least 6,000 sq.ft., and the houses on each lot are proportional to the lot size according to the zoning district's lot coverage standards. Finger Avenue Nine-Lot Planned Development Project 5 Responses to FEIR Comments City of Redwood City June 2012