Laserfiche WebLink
8.A. - Page 368 <br /> Finger Ave.Prvject FBIR Commcnts <br /> June 15, 2U 12 <br /> Page 9 of 12 <br /> construct)does not render an alternative infeasible, or even potentially infeasible, absent <br /> evidence. <br /> Response C-43 <br /> In resportse to the request for an alternative wi#h reduced-bulk houses, this reaponse <br /> atates, "The second stories would ne�d to be expanded to recoup house area to <br /> accommodate square footage IosE to reduced building footprints due tq increased <br /> setbacks..." needed to meet creek setback requirements. Navvhez�e in the doeuznent are <br /> house area reqvirements far feasibility established. What the EIlZ is apparently saying is <br /> #hat because the appiicant desires to build very large hauses on small lots on fhis site,he <br /> is guaranteed the right #o build very large houses, even if they don't carnpZy with the <br /> C�t�s setback requirements. Therefore any alternat�ve that reauces the size of t�ose <br /> houses,even to compfy with City�re�ulations,is unacceptable to the EiR, This approach <br /> is hoth unsupported by any evidence ar fact, and prohibified by CEQA, uncier which <br /> alterna�ives must be designed to reduce irngacts. Neither CEQA nor the sEate planning <br /> law aIlow the City ro guarantee an app2icant whatever house size he requesYs. This <br /> response Underscores the aitemaiive section's cprnplete failure to comprehend/address <br /> CEQA's most basic reyuirements. <br /> Reapanse G-44 <br /> 'I'his response again states that if the Cree[c setbacks am ta be maintained, then paxking <br /> apron depths must be reduced, entireiy ornitting any rnnsideration af reaucing the size <br /> of the houses instead, This re€usal to even consider pbvipus mi�igation afforded by <br /> redviced house sizes is imperrnissible under C�QA beCause it rejects rlearly feasibte <br /> altematives that wauld reduce projec� impacts ir► favor of ones tl�at vvauld increass <br /> impacts. <br /> Responae G-�5 <br /> This respanse is baffling. It claims that the 25-foot cxeek setback 9-unit alternative <br /> "wault� aresuIt in incrententa�,y reduced impacts campared ta the project in the areas oF <br /> geology, hydrology, and water quality�.._.", after saying earlier that the project wauld <br /> hav� na su�h impacts. It further says t�at this alternative was not intended to reduce <br /> visual imgacts because the BIR found nv sig►aificant irnpacts tr�thnse resourcea. But the <br /> EIR also found no signi�icant impacks' to the other topics listed above, sq why treat <br /> v�sual impacts differently in the aiternatives analysis? Is the EIR saying #hat there is no <br /> irnpac�to visual quality that couldn't be.reduced by an a�ternative? <br /> It is instructive thak this response states "8ecause the DEIR found the parojeck would not <br /> result in significant visua! impacts....nane of the alternatives att�mp�ed to substantially <br /> alter the placement of the new homea fac�ng Finger Avenue." Leaving �side the visual <br /> irnpacts associa€�ed wfth other houses proposed for the site, including thnae related to <br /> tree rernoval and overal] increased development densify of the sit�e, this stat�ment <br /> identifies the crux of the failure vf the docusr►ezzt wi#h respect ta consideration of <br /> aesthet#�s. It plainly re�usea ta accept any evidence of ad�rerse aesthetic change, and <br />