AgdaPkt 2012-09-10 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

8.A. - Page 459 home on Lot 7 is the subject of a simUlation provided in the Draft EIR because it is ane of twa hotnes that will be readily visible from Finger Avenue. The significance of this visual change is discussed at length in the Draft EIR, and found to be less than significant. Comment/Response G-36(No Project Alternative - existing structures and geology) • The Draft EIR's discussion highiights the older structures present on the site were not built to modern seismic codes(which is a fact}, and therefare, compared to protection afforded by new construction, residents occupying these structures are at increased risk during an earthquake(a reasonable inference}. The Draft EIR's No Project Alternative discussion is related to the effects of leaving the site in its current condition,and the Draft EIR does nat make the leap(as suggested by the comment} to conclude this alternative is in fact infeasibie by speculating about the economic (in)feasibility of retrofitting existing structures. Rather, if the pra�ect does not go forward as envisioned under the No 1'roject Alternative, and the exis#ing structures are retained indefinitely, seismic retrofits may or may not be undertakan by current or future owners depending upon their interest and ability to rnake the investment. Comments/Responses G-38 and G-39 (�'aur Lot R-1 Zoning Alternative) � Contrary to the comment's assertion, CEQA does nat require the No Project Alternative to be designed in a way that avoids or lessens a project's environmental impacts. The No Project Alternative identifies what is anticipated ta happen should the project not go forward, i.e. remain in its current developed state or redevelop according to R-1 zoning regulations under a straightforward subdivision process with four lots and potentially up to eight units(a primary and secandary unit on each lot}. Comments/Responses G-40 and G-41 {Nine Lot Standard Setbacks aRd Roadway Alternati�e A) • As explained in detai] in FEIR Response G-3,the projec#'s environmental impacts requiring mitigation{cultural resources, hydrology, geology, biology, visuaVaesthetics,and air quality)do not directly arise from the project's siza or design, rather these impacts result from site conditions which would be affected to some degree by a�y development on the site, and therefore not susceptible to substantia�reduction or avoidance by an alternative. Contrary to the comment's assertion,the EIR is not required ta provicle evidence af the economic feasibility or infeasibility of the alternatives it evaluates for the decision-makers consideration. If an alternative was being eliminated frorn further consideration in the EIR on the basis of economic infeasibility, the substantial eviaence to suppor�that conclusion wauld need to be incl�zded in the EIR, but the only trvo alternatives rejected from firrther consideration in the Draft ETR {Location Alternative and Five-Lot R-1 Zoning Alternative} are rejected for other reasons, as explained in the Draft ETR. Comments/Responses G-43 and G-44 (Project with 25 Foot Creek Setback Alternative) • The Draft EIR is not saying that the houses cauld not be reduced in size under this alternative for it to be feasible, rather the discussion identifies hovv the square footage lost to an increased creak setback for Lots l-4 could be re-gained(if desired) by increasing the second story floor area and/ar reducing the front setbacks. The lot sizes are not"small", rather they are at least 5,000 sq.ft,,and the houses on 0ach lot are proportional to the lat size according to the zoning district's lot coverage standards. Finger Avenue Nine�Lot P�anned Develapment Project 5 Responses to FEIR Comments City of Redwood City .Iune 2012