AgdaPkt 2012-09-10 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

8.A. - Page 367 Pinger A�e.Project F�1R Comments June 15,2012 Page 8 of 12 Respanse G38 My origina2 �omment expIaixted in detail how the four-lt�t alternative was designed as a straw tnan,in#ended to make it iook bad in comparison#a the project. The response (on FBTR p. ST) tha�t "this atternative was nox deve]oped for the purpose of reducing or avoiding the project's effecta vr in an attempt to meet most of the praject objectives, rather this altemati�►e ...is a variation of tl�e No Project Alterna�ive reflecting homes that could be constnacted on each of the four lots...."[eznphasis in original�, �CEQA is clear that adternatives are intended ta reduce impacts. To the degree that the develop under exisHng zoning alternaiive �an retiu�e iumpacts, it is required ta be designed ta dfl so. CEQA does not exempt t.�,e No Project Alkerz�akzve fram tIZe putpose of al#ernalives, which is to reduce irnpacts. Fuxfiher, it is clear that, thraugh its CFQA r�view and desi�n review processes, t}�e City wauld be highly sxnlikelp #o permit the alternative as described in the EIR and,therrefare,the statement that it would be diffiCUtt �ar staff to implement the rzutigations/design �eatures identified in my previous comxnent is speculative, at best {and mnre like�y false). This version qf the no-project alternative is nat consistent with CLQA requirements far alternaiives. Respanse G-39 Th�a response again uses the irnpermassibly narrow projeet objectives to fznd the 4-unit project irifeasibte. See my earlier�ammenta regarding these pbjeckivea. Reaponse G-40 The original carnment qUest�oned why the 4-Ivt alternativea A and 8 didn't inclvde smaller houses that would reduce the project's impac#s tv visual qualiky, runoff, and mature trees, The respanse that, "'I'he DBiR does nat disclose that #he house sizes themselves result in significant impacts tequix'ing rnitigatian or that warrant mnsideratioa in alternatives" is nonaenaical. The DBIR does acknowledge that increased impervious surfacea cauld produce increased quantities of contaminated r�noff co�npared to exist�ng conditions if not proper�y contralled and treated. Furthe�, the EIR acknowledges that the praject intensity of develapment wouid �hange the aesthetic character of �e site, and the significance of this change is supported by nurnexaus cazz►znen#s from �ocal residents. This is evidence enoUgh tl�at smaller houses (wit� smaller footprints, less visual prominence, and �ess tree rernoval} yvould reduce impacts. This altemative continues to fail to meet basic CEQA purposes for al#ernafives. Response G-41 This response �ontintaes to say that 9 sm�ller houses "are likely to set2 for lesa.,.which cauld affect project feasibiliiry", This sfatement, as with the original pEIR stakement, is atill entiraly unsupported by fact. The �1R prcavides no eviden�e as to what level Qf development ia financial(y feasible or infeasible. Just because there could be less profit (althaugh even this is specutative, as smaller homes presnmabty would cast Iesa to