AgdaPkt 2012-09-10 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

8.A. - Page 361 Fingcr Ave.Project�'EIR Commenta Jnne I5,2412 Page 2 of 12 abrogates the City's responaibilities as Lead Agency. CEQA Gufdelines f�ection 15124(b}state, "The statement af objectives should�nclude the underlying purpose of fhe project." There is a rnajar differen�e between the underlying purpose af a praject(e,g., to develop housrng on a sife) and a detailed descriptinn of the specifica of the praject itsel�. The City, as Leac! Agency, has both khe auYharity and resp�nsibiiify Yo f�lter out detailed "objectives" that are no#germane to the project's underlying p�xpos��nd serve only#o impermissibly�innit the "feasibfZity" af alternatives. The Ciry's response#aals to understand that distinetian, and instead takea the poaition fhat the applicant can wxite the C�QA project objectiv�es. We suggeat that the City review a nu�ber of NEPA cases (identified in Remy, Thomas, Moose, and Manley's Gtxide tn C£QA — 11�' edition, pp. 588-595, Y�ereby incarporated by zeferente)ihat axe instruetive on this iss�e, T'hese cases are applicable because NEPA has Ehe same Ianguage regarding "underlying need" �r a project as does CEQA. Sperifically,the Prqject Objec#ivea specify a 9-unit, detached, single-fami�y develogment with two homes facing Pinger Avenue and severa� homes with private rear yard�Facing Cordilleras Creek, and two garage and two driveway pasking spaces on each o£ the homes. This is rrot a description of t�e projec�'s uttder��tng y�urpose— it is mere[y a summary of the speciJ`I��ropnsed project, In fa�t, these "objectives" fail ko even merttion the project's underlying purpose, The��IR's reappnse to this comment (Response G-3) states "This cornmenY appears ta reach its awn conclusions that tlte variaus alternatives are infeasible based on their inabality ta meet project a�ertirres" is inappropriate, argumentative, and tangen�ial tv the comment. 'I'he respc�nse goes on to state that because the DEIlt did not identify any significant unavvidable impacts, it need no# consider broader alternatives that "would be broadly designed to fix" thas� impacts. This is the exact argvment Yhat was reje�ted by the courts in the Laurel Heights I derision (Lauret Heights Improvement Association of San Francisco, Inc., v. The Regenta Of The Uaiversity Of California,Supreme Court vf California 47 Cal. 3d 376;December 1, 1988),which states: Finally, zve note that atternRtives end rnitigntion measures have the same functton -- diminishing or avofd�ng adverse e�vironmental efferts, TF�e chief gaal of CEQA is mitigatirn� or avoidanre of envtronmen�al hurrrr. To argue that only »titigu�ion measures need be discussed overloaks the fact that uTternatives are a type of mitigAtio�r�. As detailed in our earlier let#er, the importance of h�ving a broader statement of pro�ect objectives and an accompanying broader range of alternakives is appaxent when one views the relative impacts of tlze alternatives as described in the DEIR,' 'I'l�e identified differences between the Prapased Project and Alternatives 3, 4, and 5 are mirumal, with the primary differences being minor variatioris in tree removal, creek setback and roadway design. These altema[ivea do not acttaally reduce the subafaz�tial impacts of the Project. In � bizaxre exercise, Respanse to Cornment G-3 gpes on to "cnmpare" the 1 It should be noted that the assessment of relatEve irnpacts af the alternatives fs skewed,and several of the 9-unit alternatives a�pear Ca have been designed to result in greater impacts than necessary, resu�ting in impermissibke°straw men"alEernatives.