AgdaPkt 2012-09-10 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

8.A. - Page 364 Finger Ave.ProjecY FBIR Comments June 15,2UI2 Page 5 of 22 Response G26 The cvmmen# add�ressed the DBIIZ's faiture to address the pro�ecYs iznpact on community character. The zesponse states that community character is subjective and that#he City is aware of the neighbors'opi�nions with respect to aesthetics. The c�uestion then ia,why dic3n't t�e City cpns3der the neighbors'doccrmented concerns as substanHal evidence and, at a minimum, docvment disagreeing experts in the EIR? Even that approach wout� be inadequate b�cause this is nor a merely case af disagreeing experts. In fact, the EIA failed entirety fo assess the impacts of ehe project on community rharacter. Specificaliy, it re€used to expand the project maps to s�ow rnmmunity cantext, refused to provide objezt�ve pho#osimulations, (instead inc4rporating the applicant's subjective drawingsJ, failed to adec�uately consyder the ]oss of ma#�c�re trees, and in the absence vf tItis inforrnation, ultimately concluded, that City staff have snore experience on aesign matters khan do the neighbors. This fails to comply with CEQA case law direcfive established in Pocket Pro#ectors and Ucean View �states de�isions, and ather CEQA case Iaw (The�'veket ProEectors v, City of Sacramentn, 32�Cad.App.4tta9fJ3; Ocean View Estates Homeawners Associa�ion, Inc. v. Montecito Water District, 116 Cal.App.4t1�,396.) tha! give great weight to Iorat resic�ents` apinions on aesthetic issues. (Note that over 75 locat residents subxnittec�aigned statements speafieally calling aut the loss of aesthetic arnenities as rnajor cancerns). It alsa fails ta comply vvith C�QA's requirements that canclusions be supported by substanHal factual evidence. Finally, concltading that the Project's aesthetic impact is inaignificant in light of substantiaI evidence to ths contrary results in the dacument failing to meet CEQA's basic purpose, namely protee#ion af the environment, Itesponses G-29 and G-30 T'�ese responses aea2 with �oncerns that the impacts of acknaw]edged ongoing eroaion to potential new houses 5ituat�d very close to thp atz�am-bank have not been ahown to be mitigated. The responaes �zte case law stating that if an agez�cy haa evaluated si cant impacts and identi�ted means of rriitigating therx� it need not rnmmit in the E� to a particular couarae of mitigatian and punt development of mitigation ta futuxe design and agency permitting. This case law is not applicable to the camznent because the cornment was that the �IR fa}led ta identify any xeal mitigation, �ut just refereneed ideas in a generic handboak. Therefore the EIR has not identified measures that wauld mifigute the impacE. If this were a prograrnmatic�.iR on a Conceptuai plan, then perhaps a conceptual appraach to mitigation might be appropria�e—however this is a vezy discrete plan with detailed housP footprints, thereEore it is essential thak d�taile,d mitigation measures be identified in the docurnent sa that theix effectiveneas and �easibility can be assessed. Further, in Response G-30,substit�uting CDFG€uture permit requirements for CEQA analyses fails to recognize that CEQA is a separate environmental pxotectian ]aw froin CDFG's Strearnbed Alteration permit and can impose greater mitiga�ion thart that pernut,if appropriat'e.