Laserfiche WebLink
9 <br /> <br />5 acres within an urban context, does not contain habitat for endangered species, and <br />would not result in significant effects related to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality. <br />State Density Bonus law concessions and waivers are not considered inconsistencies <br />with General Plan and zoning standards for purposes of this CEQA exemption. <br />Appeal Filed: <br />Michael Goolsby, on behalf of Better Neighborhoods Inc. (Appellant or BNI), appealed <br />the Planning Commission’s approval of the project, indicating that the approval was <br />improper since the project is ineligible for the Class 32 “Infill” exemption due to unusual <br />circumstances that may result in potentially significant impacts. The following section <br />provides a detailed response to the points raised in the appeal letter. <br /> <br />The Appeal shall be heard de novo (RCMC § 1.45.10). As explained in the Municipal <br />Code, “the reviewing body [City Council] shall hear the appeal as a new matter. The <br />original applicant has the burden of proof. In addition to considering the testimony and <br />evidence presented at the hearing on the appeal, the reviewing body [City Council] shall <br />consider all pertinent information from the file as a result of the previous hearings from <br />which the appeal is taken.” <br /> <br />ANALYSIS <br /> <br />I. Proposed Grading Does Not Constitute Unusual Circumstances <br /> <br />Appellant asserts that the City must prepare an MND or EIR for the project on the basis <br />that the project is ineligible for an infill exemption due to unusual circumstances. The <br />appellant indicates that the amount of soil transport and shallow water table constitute <br />unusual circumstances. Appellant sets forth a number of points in support of this <br />assertion (see Appeal, pg. 3-5). <br /> <br />The subsections below (a) summarize how the City’s environmental review processes <br />complied with CEQA, and (b) explain why Appellant’s contentions that the City must <br />prepare further environmental review lack merit. <br /> <br />a. Soils Export and Substantial Grading <br /> <br />Appellant’s Contention: <br />The soil excavation constitutes unusual circumstances because it entails off-hauling <br />approximately 2 acres of fill to a depth of 15 feet. This work involves potential impacts <br />during construction relating to traffic for the multiple semi-trailer trips, noise, air quality, <br />and general neighborhood disruption. <br /> <br />City’s Response: <br />7.B. - Page 9