AgdaPkt 2012-09-10 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

8.A. - Page 369 Finger Ava.Project F'EIR Comrments .T�ne 15,2p12 Page IO of 22 therefore ref�ases ta even consider reducing that impact (be it aignificant or less than significant). TF�e portion af this response regaxding the tree surveq also is completely unresponsive. It refers the reader ta the new #ree survey for a discuasion of impaef significance, bvt that survey cpntains zero discussian of the significance oE #he praject irnpacks on trees, In fact, the reter�nced atxrvey does not, as claimed, "confirmed in his opinion that trees to be preserved in place �an be expezted to co-eaust with the new development and therefore there is not a need to address this impact in an alternati�ve..,", In fact, the Kie�ty tree survey does nat include any assessment o£the like�ihood of tree surviva� with the praject, nor did the original survey. Th�response is false and rerrtains unsupported by evidence. Respanse G4� This xespanse reiterates the prevaausly addressed unsupported economic and 5eismic discussion of"issues that cou]d affecf feasibility"wi#h respect to the proposed Creekside �reen Alternative. The ��R reaponse pravides no evidence supporting the infeasibility of this alternative, or even that the claizned "is5ues that CAUId affect �easibility" are, in fact,real. The reapo�ts�also c3aima tha#it need not anatyze the feasibility oE retentiqn of the existing stxuchzre as proposed in the altemative beear�se that stru�re is not gexmane to project impacts alsa is disingent�ous, given that the fiIR previously claims khat potential damage ko that structure in an earthquake is a reasan to consider other alternatives infeasible. Response G--47 See our�revio�rs comments regarding�hotosimulations. Response G-5Q This response #ails to pmvide any irt#ormation regarding haw the project would fit in with the�ity's�enezal Plan's atated goal of prnviding a range af hausing types, It does not answ�r the simple question of, "are mpre high-incorne hot�ses neecied in titis area,at the expense of mid-income ho�ses". The etatement that "the prts�ect contributes to a varied supply of housing..." is vague and unsupported by any analysis that this higher- income housing is needed in the City at �he expsnse of the existing lawer-incame hausing. Conclusions The net effect of alI of the above-referenced issues is an FEIR that fails ko adequately identify the projec# purpase artd need, alternatives, and environmental impacts, Equally pzoblematic, the EIR continues to pressnt a skewed assessment af tha re�ative impacts of alternatives, tree remova2, and aest�etics, and, in so doing, arbii�rarity otnits mtevant expert opinion or fact that is fundame�ta2 to the decision-ma3cers' understanding of the full extent of the potential environmental irnpacts of the project,