FULL PACKET_2019-12-03 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

and to comment on its contents. Indeed, many commenters submitted comments on the document at or before both the Planning Commission and City Council meetings. For these reasons, recirculation of the Draft EIR was not required. The City has made note of the commenters request to receive notices of this project. Comment 2: The comment provides a summary of the Planning Commission meeting, project entitlements, and modifications to the project. The comment asserts that the project is a contrast the adjacent park and single-family residential homes. The comment asserts that the project would result in a potential home price devaluation and therefore, a deprivation of the property rights of adjacent landowners. Response 2: According to State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15131(a), economic or social effects of a project shall not be treated as significant effects on the environment. To that end, the alleged home price devaluation mentioned in the comment is not a CEQA issue. The comment does not trace this alleged economic devaluation to any potential physical change in the environment, and there is no such evidence in the record that such physical effects would occur. Therefore, the economic impacts of this project need not be addressed in the EIR. As described in Response 1, the October Clarification to the FOR acknowledges the modification of the project, which generally consists of a reduction in the number of residential units and a surface parking lot on the site. The October Clarification to the FEIR provides an evaluation that determined no new or additional impacts would result from the modifications. Also, Section 4.9, Population and Housing, describes that according to Section 15382 of the CEQA Guidelines, "[a]n economic or social change by itself shall not be considered a significant impact on the environment" Socioeconomic characteristics should be considered in an EIR only to the extent that they create adverse impacts on the physical environment. The EIR determined that potential impacts to the single-family residential properties adjacent to the east of the site (such as construction noise) would be mitigated to a less than significant level. Any increase or decrease in the valuation of the adjacent residential properties would not result in a significant impact on the environment, as residences (including single-family) are in demand within the region (as detailed in Section 4.9, Population and Housing), would remain occupied, and would not result in an adverse impact on the physical environment. Comment 3: The comment provides a case law discussion about the requirements of an EIR project description. The comment asserts that the project violates the General Plan. The comment states that the project is capable of a much higher maximum density than is being considered in the environmental review and that the project description may be inaccurate because it does not identify the maximum allowable density based on the proposed entitlements. Response 3: The project description is definite, finite and consistent. The project evaluated in the Draft EIR was consistently referred to throughout the Draft EIR and technical appendices. The two Clarification documents describe in detail the project changes that were evaluated as part of the CEQA process. The project description in each Clarification document was consistent throughout. Reducing the project intensity and density is the very type of development design response that is contemplated by CEQA. It is the quintessential example of the environmental considerations of the project shaping the end result. If a project could not be reduced or changed as a result of environmental review and public input, the most fundamental purpose of the public review process would be eviscerated. The City's response to public comment on the project — the reductions in the project — do not mean that the project description is unstable or shifting. As described in Response 1, the EIR provides a full discussion regarding compliance with General Plan policies and the potential of the project to conflict with a policy and result in a significant environmental impact, which determined that impacts would be less than significant. 11A-110