AgdaPkt 2012-09-10 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

8.A. - Page 460 Camment/Response G-45 (�nvironmentally Superior Alternative) • Neither the Draft EIR nor the FEIR responses stated that the project wovld have no impacts in the areas of geology, hydrology, and water quality, rather it was explained that project impacts would either be less than significant or where initially significant, require feasible mitigation to be reduced to less than significant levels. In the case of visuaVaesthetics impacts,the Draft EIR found the introduction of new homes on Lats 7 and 8 facing F'inger Avenue would not have a significant impact, nor would the more remote and partial views af the remain�ing seven homes internal to the project, and therefore no attempt was made or required in designing the alternatives to addrass this issue. Contrary to the cornment, and as explained above in Comment/Response G-31, arborist Kevin Kielty did specifically consider the project's impacts on trees ta be retained. Comments/Responses G-46 and G-47 (Creekside Green Alternative} � Neither the Draft�IR's discussion of this alternative nor the responses provided in the FEIR concluded or suggested that this alternative was infeasible, as claimad by the comment. This alternative remains an option to be considared by the City Coezncil. CommentJResponse G-50(variety of housing choices) • This cornment focuses on whether the homes would be for high-income or mid- incorne households, which is outside an EIR's discussion of a project's environmental effects. The policy at issue speaks to the City providing a wide variety of housing choices within the City, and does not create an expectation that an individual private, market-rate single-family housir�g developrrzent must itself include a range of housing types and options available to households of varying incomes. Finger Avenue Nine-Lot Planned Development Project 6 Responses to F�IR Comments City of Redwood City June 20t2