AgdaPkt 2012-09-10 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

8.A. - Page 366 Finger Ave.ProjecE FEIR Comments June 15,2012 Page 7 of 12 is why most CEQA documents on projec#s with potentially significant viaual irnpacts includ� them. Far examgle, the City of Belmont is crarrently using a set of 3 such simulaHons in an Initisl Study vn a 100-fpot roadway extension and a singIe 2,500-sy, ft. house, These simulations aze essential ta supporting any conclt�sians on the projert's visua]impacts. In response to �he City's refusal to include this critical inforrnation, local residents contxacted #o pr�pared sirnulations thetnselves. These simu]ati4ns, subtnitted by Ehe F'APC t�nder separate cover, indicate a significant rhange in the site's �ri,sual yuaiity, rnnsistea�t with the concerns over adverse aesthetic impacts described above. �ailure to inclvde these simulations in the E1R is a substantive failure an the part of the I,ead Agency. 'I'he response shou�d be revised and fiIR should be recirculated given the new sim�Iations. Responses G33 und G-34 The response cor�'ectl�r identifiea the issve of signifirance writh respect to aestltetic smpacta as related ro the nvmber of viewers. The respnnse then focuses on private views "of a dozen or so" nearby residents. This cvmpletely ignares the gist af the com�ment, which was that the sigxuifican,ce of the impacts ignored �h� combination of pubiic and pt°�aate viezvs, and therefore is similar to the Qcean Vaew Estates context. Further the response fails to consider the apinions c�f over 76�qcal residents who signed statements specifir.ally expressing their concern with the aesthetic impacts of the project. This failur�, in carnbination with the lack of substantial evidence of lack of significante, as discussed with respect to Respanse G-26, abvve results in a faiZure to adeyuately address this important 5ubject. Responae G-84's co�clusion that the TIR aesthetics anaIysis asses�ed the irnpact of cornbined impacts of ail el�ments of the projett is entireIy vnsuppoxted. T'�e referenced conClusion that the praject "would reinforce the developed c�aracter of Finger Avenue..,rather than the semi-rural aesthetic" on the north side of Finger menely states 'rhe obvioUS, but does reot evwtuate the significance of Ehat change as rnanda#ed by CEQA. It daes,hov+rever, aupport the local residents' rnntentian pf a signi�icant impact due to the loss of the serni-rural character (ths significance of which is never evatuated in the EIR), Respanse G-3B The response continues to claim, in the ahsence of any supporting e�riden�e ar anatysis, that exis#ing str�ctures on the site wou�d be IikeIy to fail in an earthc�uaice. in fact, as nated in the comment, the structures ap�arently survivecl the 19Q6 Magnitude 7.8 earthq�take. It further rlaims that retrofitting effoxts "are likely to be aubstantaa2 and expensive", again in the absence af any supporting information or economic ana�ysis. Givsn t�at in this neighborhood, tear-downs and recot�structions are considered feasible, ali of these rlaime of expense Ieading to infeasibili#y are specutative, at best, CEQA dces not permit speculation.