AgdaPkt 2013-09-23 Closed and Regular

Browse Search

8.A. - Page 367 manaft 8.A. Page 125 Ism 100910aps Honorable Mayor and Members of the City eb nveft August 15, 2011 Page 14 Environmental Impact Analysis, 3.1 Aesthetics.) Thus, *bile mitigation memures attempt to address isolated objectionable *ads, they do not ftn the cumulative effect of 8 -plus years ofthen onping adveree conditions. It is a fbresom conclusion that some neighbors, particularly those housdwlds with elderly rem dente and children will quite literally be AwW fin their home) es a result of increased irefiic, noisee reduced air quality, risk of landslides and the constant presence ofhea.vy comMuction equipment. Yd, the FM brazenly states that no residents will be displaced ma result ofthe project. Gives the sheer size, length and close pmximity of the project to existing homes, this statennent sinnplY begs bift.' Per -haps most c oncen&* is the Staff Report's dismWon of the potendal infeasibility of some or all of the Ildidgation Measures adopted wholesale by the Platming C.omnission. Even assuming the adequacy of such measures, the cost of implementation and a iorcement (to be borne by the applicant) will be enormous. The applicant has ah=dy pointed out that such oasts are an issue relative to home resale value. Before cmiiz ing thin EK dyne City Alheuld determine whefex such costs are prohibitive, and whether the mitigation measures are, in fiat, infeasible. (e) The &dA Fade In Describe A Aegean a the t CEQA requires that an BIR must discuss a reasonable range of alteanadva to the prmpased project or its location that would feasibly mca most: project objectives but avoid or substantially lessen the p *jocVs significant impacts. (CEQA Guidelirwm, § 1512&6.) Due to the iummiot and inzdalute impact analysis and insufficient mitigation measures, the alternatives proposed necessarily fo to presahi real alternatives to the under-dom bed envirortmarrial desbiwtion proposed by the project. Alternative B, for example, calling for digWy reduced building square footage, beeping all other aspeots of the pmject the same, would bave no ova -all positive effect. Pardw, we mdecrstand fiem the Staff report that oompmisan house sine data (Appemlix C to the Fuel EM, on which Alternative B is based) is significantly flawed and no substitute daft havebeen adopted. We would also like to point out that the `ono project alternative" (Alternative A) is not necessarily Rely to, produce a ger aavftw=catal impact than the planned development Pject. If the Ss 7% C*M="=% t l=W deaiel of the aaietcmm of sly WSO&BOt m immental impsats rQedun fmm dee pmpowd develq=a9 Show the untrtem to apps mwe of subarddbating the ntcreate of do a eoy coeammo. Ions•teem t+eeden% and ft mvbatnaaet to atih dnd dawkipmod, which we do wt believe the C=mhsm komded.