AgdaPkt 2012-07-09 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

8.A. - Page 372 Comment/Response G-45 (Environmentally Superior Alternative) • Neither the Draft EIR nor the FEIR responses stated that the project would have no impacts in the areas of geology,hydrology, and water quality,rather it was explained that project impacts would either be less than significant or where initially significant,require feasible mitigation to be reduced to less than significant levels. In the case of visual/aesthetics impacts,the Draft EIR found the introduction of new homes on Lots 7 and 8 facing Finger Avenue would not have a significant impact, nor would the more remote and partial views of the remaining seven homes internal to the project, and therefore no attempt was made or required in designing the alternatives to address this issue. Contrary to the comment, and as explained above in Comment/Response G-31, arborist Kevin Kielty did specifically consider the project's impacts on trees to be retained. Comments/Responses G-46 and G-47 (Creekside Green Alternative) • Neither the Draft EIR's discussion of this alternative nor the responses provided in the FEIR concluded or suggested that this alternative was infeasible, as claimed by the comment. This alternative remains an option to be considered by the City Council. Comment/Response G-50 (variety of housing choices) • This comment focuses on whether the homes would be for high-income or mid- income households, which is outside an EIR's discussion of a proj ect's environmental effects. The policy at issue speaks to the City providing a wide variety of housing choices within the City, and does not create an expectation that an individual private,market-rate single-family housing development must itself include a range of housing types and options available to households of varying incomes. Finger Avenue Nine-Lot Planned Development Project 6 Responses to FEIR Comments City of Redwood City June 2012